Transport document discrepancies under VAT law upheld as factual findings, leaving the penalty undisturbed in revision.

Concurrent factual findings that goods were moved on discrepant transport documents, with the vehicle routed inconsistently and its number absent from the prescribed papers, justified penalty for contravention of the value added tax transport requirements. The court treated the case as one of non-compliance and inferred an intention to evade tax from the documentary inconsistencies, so the penalty was sustained. In revision, the challenge raised no substantial question of law because the authorities below had already recorded concurrent findings on the transport violations and no legal error was shown on the record. The revision therefore failed and the penalty remained in force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had complied with the transportation requirements under the value added tax law and whether the penalty imposed for carrying goods on the strength of discrepant documents was justified; (ii) Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in revision against the concurrent findings of the authorities below.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had complied with the transportation requirements under the value added tax law and whether the penalty imposed for carrying goods on the strength of discrepant documents was justified.

Analysis: The record showed that the goods vehicle was intercepted on a route not ordinarily taken to the stated destination, the vehicle number was not reflected in the relevant documents, and the authorities found inconsistencies between the documents tendered and the actual movement of goods. The statutory authorities concurrently recorded that the goods were transported without compliance with the prescribed transport documentation requirements and that the circumstances indicated an intention to evade tax. On those findings, the penalty imposed for contravention of the transport provisions was sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty under the transport contravention provision was upheld and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in revision against the concurrent findings of the authorities below.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction was confined to cases where a question of law arose. Since the authorities below had returned concurrent findings of fact on the discrepancies in the transport documents and the failure to comply with the statutory requirements, the challenge was purely factual and did not raise a question of law warranting interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the revision was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed, and the penalty remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings on non-compliance with statutory transport requirements and discrepancy in documents do not give rise to a substantial question of law in revision absent a legal error apparent on the record.

---