Revisional jurisdiction limited to questions of law; factual findings stand unless perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act is confined to questions of law, and the High Court cannot act as a second appellate court to reappreciate evidence. Findings of fact may be interfered with only if they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or otherwise illegal. On the survey material, stock reconciliation and surrounding facts, the Tribunal had given a reasoned finding that the alleged shortage of cigarettes was not established. No jurisdictional error or patent perversity was shown, so the assessment-based revision failed and the Tribunal's order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with the Tribunal's factual findings accepting the dealer's stock reconciliation and rejecting the assessment based on alleged shortage of cigarettes.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is confined to questions of law and does not permit the High Court to act as a second appellate court. Interference with findings of fact is warranted only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, vitiated by misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or otherwise illegal. The Tribunal had examined the survey material, the reconciliation explanation, and the surrounding facts and reached a reasoned conclusion that the alleged shortage was not established. No jurisdictional error or patent perversity was shown to justify reappraisal of the evidence.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on the facts urged and no interference with the Tribunal's order was called for.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate finding was left undisturbed and the assessment-based revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless the impugned finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by a legal error affecting its correctness.

---