Natural justice and concurrent findings barred inter-State sales tax assessment and penalty on the assessees' transactions.

Local sales supported by invoices, lorry receipts, ledger extracts and payment records were not liable to be assessed as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the buyer's statement was not tested by cross-examination and no clinching material proved inter-State movement. The concurrent factual findings that suppression was not established and that natural justice had been breached were supported by evidence and were not perverse. In revision, the court declined interference with those findings, and the penalty founded on the same assessment was consequently not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's turnover could be assessed as inter-State sales and taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the levy of penalty and the concurrent factual findings of the authorities called for interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's turnover could be assessed as inter-State sales and taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The assessee had produced invoices, lorry receipts, ledger extracts, and payment details to support the claim of local sales to a registered dealer. The assessment was founded mainly on the buyer's statement and movement of lorries, but the buyer's version had not been tested by cross-examination and no clinching material established that the consignments had in fact moved as inter-State sales. The authorities held that denial of cross-examination and rejection of the documentary evidence vitiated the conclusion of suppression.

Conclusion: The turnover was not liable to be assessed as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the finding was in favour of the assessee on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of penalty and the concurrent factual findings of the authorities called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The authorities below had concurrently held that the assessment order suffered from breach of natural justice and that the material on record did not justify a finding of suppression. In revision, interference with such concurrent findings was permissible only if the conclusions were perverse, based on no evidence, or ignored relevant material. On the record, the findings were supported by evidence and could not be characterised as perverse. Consequently, the penalty founded on the same assessment also could not survive.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the concurrent findings, and the penalty was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed, as the assessees' transactions were treated as local sales and the assessment and penalty orders were not shown to be perverse or otherwise illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or rendered illegal by violation of natural justice such as denial of a fair opportunity of cross-examination.

---