Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) FOR the Assessment Year 1997 -98 (U.P.), the Assessing Authority, i.e. Trade Tax Officer -6, Aligarh, rejected the accounts of assessee and proceeded to make best judgment assessment imposing a total tax liability of Rs. 1,41,000/ - by order dated 23.10.1999. The accounts were rejected relying on a survey report dated 24.10.1998, wherein a Diary was seized which contains entries from 20.5.1997 to 28.3.1999 relating to transaction pertaining to Assessee. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, Revisionist preferred First Appeals No. 766 of 1999 in relation to provincial tax and 767 of 1999 in relation to central tax. First Appellate Authority by order dated 20.10.2000 dismissed Appeal No. 766 of 1999 but enhanced tax by Rs. 82,500, but partly allowed Appeal No. 767 of 1999, reducing tax liability by Rs. 1,00,000. Consequently, the Assessee preferred Second Appeal No. 11 of 2000(1997 -98 -U.P.)and Second Appeal No. 10 of 2000 (1997 -98 -Central). The Assessee's Appeal No. 11 of 2000 (1997 -98 -U.P.) has been partly allowed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench -II, Ghaziabad Camp. At Aligarh by impugned judgment dated 15.10.2004 reducing tax liability by Rs. 1,750 but the Second Appeal No. 10 of 2000 (1997 -98 -Central) has been dismissed. Another Second Appeal was preferred by department also, i.e., Second Appeal No. 6 of 2000 (1997 -98 - Central). That has also been dismissed. Sri R.K. Garg, learned counsel for assessee, contended that diary, which was seized in survey, belong to one Virendra Mistri, but neither he was examined nor allowed to be cross -examined by assessee, though he has filed his affidavit owing the diary and also stating that he is part -time worker and also employed in other establishments. Therefore, adverse inference could not have been drawn against assessee.
(2.) THE authorities below have discussed on these aspects of the matter and have recorded a finding that the assessee could not prove whatever he claim with regard to employee, Virendra Mistri, and it was not the responsibility of the Department to call upon the said person for cross -examination by the Assessee, since the affidavit of said person was filed by Assessee himself, hence, it was the Assessee, who relied on the statement of Virendra Mistri, and, hence, there was no question of any cross -examination by the Assessee from his own witness. Regarding the veracity of what has been stated in the affidavit by Sri Virendra Mistri, the Tribunal has discussed the matter and found that detailed entries with respect to transactions relating to Assessee's establishment have been mentioned therein and an indepth study thereof shows that the statement given by Virendra Mistri in the affidavit was incorrect since it was contradictory to what was contained in the diary, seized during survey. These are concurrent findings of fact and learned counsel for the Assessee could not point out any patent illegality or perversity therein so as to warrant interference by this Court. Though the Assessee has formulated four questions of law in para 12 of memo of revision, but after going through the said questions carefully, this Court could not find that any question of law has been raised therein, and, in fact, the findings of fact recorded by Tribunal have been sought to be challenged that the same are not correct.
(3.) IN my view, a mere question whether a judgment is correct or not without anything more would not give rise to a question of law. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and section 58 of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, the language whereof is pari materia, only when a question of law has arisen in the matter. It is, thus, a substantial and jurisdictional issue, whether there has arisen a question of law or not. Even if there is some factual errors or view taken by authorities below is not as good as this Court may find, and another view may be possible but that would not provide a jurisdiction to this Court under section 11 to interfere unless there does arise a question of law.;