Revisional review cannot disturb Tribunal findings of fact unless illegality, infirmity, or perversity is shown.

Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of factual findings recorded by the Tribunal unless those findings are shown to be illegal, infirm, or perverse. On the facts arising from interception of goods and the material relied upon by the assessing authority, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, and no defect was shown in that factual determination. The revision was therefore not maintainable on the facts found, and interference was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court could interfere with the Tribunal's factual finding upholding the order of penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded findings on the factual matrix arising from interception of goods and the materials relied upon by the assessing authority. In revisional jurisdiction, such findings of fact are not open to reappreciation unless illegality, infirmity, or perversity is shown. No such defect in the Tribunal's order was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on the facts found by the Tribunal and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not disturb concurrent or concluded findings of fact unless they are shown to be illegal, infirm, or perverse.

---