Concurrent findings and no substantial question of law left VAT demand undisturbed in second appeal.

Concurrent factual findings that claimed purchases from Rajasthan dealers were not supported by reliable evidence, that transaction records showed journal entries rather than genuine banking movement, and that bona fide exempt sales were not established were upheld. The Gujarat HC held that the record disclosed no perversity in the authorities' findings and that a mere reappraisal of evidence did not give rise to any substantial question of law under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The adverse tax demand and related findings therefore remained undisturbed, and second appeal interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's findings treating the transactions as non-genuine and taxable suffered from perversity or gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The appeal arose under section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court examined the concurrent factual findings that the claimed purchases from Rajasthan dealers were not supported by reliable evidence, that the transaction records did not show genuine banking movement and instead reflected journal entries, and that the material on record did not establish bona fide exempt sales. The Court also noted that the challenge under the VAT framework did not disclose any perversity in the orders of the authorities below. On the record, the findings of fact were based on evidence and did not warrant interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the concurrent findings were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand and related adverse findings were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with in second appeal unless perversity is shown, and a mere reappraisal of evidence does not create a substantial question of law.

---