https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464199 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. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:48:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464199 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. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464199