https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342144 In revision, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on an unwithdrawn admission, because revisional jurisdiction is confined to questions of law arising from an erroneous legal decision or failure to decide a legal issue. The authorities relied on the assessee's representative's categorical admission that the vehicle had not been declared, and that admission remained unretracted and supported the factual findings. Penalty under section 34(7) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was also sustained, as the factual enquiry supported an attempt to evade tax and no legal infirmity was shown in the Tribunal's conclusion. en-us Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342144 In revision, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on an unwithdrawn admission, because revisional jurisdiction is confined to questions of law arising from an erroneous legal decision or failure to decide a legal issue. The authorities relied on the assessee's representative's categorical admission that the vehicle had not been declared, and that admission remained unretracted and supported the factual findings. Penalty under section 34(7) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was also sustained, as the factual enquiry supported an attempt to evade tax and no legal infirmity was shown in the Tribunal's conclusion. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342144