Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Trade Tax Revision No. 31 of 2008 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. …….Revisionist Versus M/s Roshni Traders, Jasodhpur, Kotdwar ……Respondent Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the revisionist. Sri Alok Singh, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent. 5th November, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Hon’ble S. Dhulia,J. This revision under Section 11(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Second Appeal No. 61/2007 pertaining to Assessment Year 2002-03, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee/respondent is a registered dealer engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel products. The Assessing Officer while assessing the respondent for the financial year 2002-03 rejected the books of account of the respondent and assessed the total sale at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and accordingly determined the tax liability of Rs. 3,98,400/- vide his order dated 30.9.2006. Appeal of the respondent against the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-II, 2 Commercial Tax, Dehradun vide his order dated 28.2.2007. 3. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, which was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2007, whereby the taxable turnover has been reduced to Rs. 52,71,251/- and the tax liability has accordingly been reduced to Rs. 2,09,250/-. 4. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the revisionist/Department has preferred this revision and has raised the following question of law in the memo of revision for consideration by this Court:- “Whether the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal was justified in reducing the assessed turnover when the dealer failed to produce any reliable evidence either before the assessing authority or before the Commercial Tax Tribunal?” 5. After having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and after going the materials available on the record, we find that no question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Question of law raised in the memo of revision is not a question of law, rather it pertains to the facts of the case which cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. Dhulia,J.) (P.C.Verma,J.) 05.11.2008 05.11.2008 Prabodh