https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187468 A tax revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be maintained where the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and the record disclosed no material error or question of law. The revisional challenge therefore failed on merits because it sought to reopen factual findings only. Independently, Rule 5(2) of Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules required service on the assessee and filing of an affidavit of service, with only limited dispensation. Persistent non-compliance with that mandatory procedural safeguard also justified rejection of the revision. The challenge was thus unsustainable both on merits and for procedural default. en-us Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187468 A tax revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be maintained where the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and the record disclosed no material error or question of law. The revisional challenge therefore failed on merits because it sought to reopen factual findings only. Independently, Rule 5(2) of Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules required service on the assessee and filing of an affidavit of service, with only limited dispensation. Persistent non-compliance with that mandatory procedural safeguard also justified rejection of the revision. The challenge was thus unsustainable both on merits and for procedural default. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187468