JUDGMENT G. T. NANAVATI, J. - The following question has been referred by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 to this Court for its decision. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no implied purchase of empty gunny bags took place in the transactions of purchase of groundnuts effected by the applicant - mills and that, consequently, the value of the empty gunny bags subsequently sold by the applicants - mills was not admissible for deduction from the turnover of the applicant - mills liable to tax, under section 7(ii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?" Whether there was an implied contract or not to purchase empty gunny bags was required to be decided on the basis of facts as disclosed by the evidence and conduct of the parties. Thus it was a pure question of fact, particularly when no principle of law was applied or was required to be applied while drawing that inference. Realising this hurdle in his way, what Mr. Pathak submitted was that along with his appeal memo, he had produced some material before the Tribunal to show that the assessee had paid for gunny bags while purchasing groundnuts but that has not been considered by the Tribunal and for that reason it can be said that the finding recorded by it is perverse and in that sense a question of law does arise as per the judgment of the Tribunal. No such material appears to have been produced before the Assistant Commissioner. Before the Tribunal also such material does not appear to have been produced in the sense that it was tendered as additional evidence after obtaining an order of the Tribunal in that behalf. Neither before the Assistant Commissioner, nor before the Tribunal, a contention was raised to the effect that the assessee was paying the same price for purchasing groundnuts, whether it was purchased in loose condition or in gunny bags. Therefore, the contention which Mr. Pathak tried to raise before us, viz. Neither before the Assistant Commissioner, nor before the Tribunal, a contention was raised to the effect that the assessee was paying the same price for purchasing groundnuts, whether it was purchased in loose condition or in gunny bags. Therefore, the contention which Mr. Pathak tried to raise before us, viz. that when the assessee purchased groundnuts in gunny bags it paid the same price and got less quantity of groundnuts inasmuch as in the total weight the weight of the gunny bag was also included, cannot be permitted to be raised and it cannot be said that by overlooking that evidence, the Tribunal arrived at a perverse finding. Other grounds on which the Tribunal's finding was challenged as perverse were that the certificate produced by the assessee of Mahuva Chambers of Commerce was not taken into consideration, and that the Tribunal wrongly assumed that when two dealers in the very nature of things enter into agreement for purchase and sale of groundnuts, there would not have been any stipulation either express or implied about the purchase of empty bags or payment of their price. So far as the certificate of Mahuva Chambers of Commerce is concerned, the same was not produced before the Assistant Commissioner and it was sought to be produced by the applicant along with the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal. No further orders in that behalf were sought by the assessee from the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the same. Moreover, it would have been only a piece of evidence and that too a very weak one. If what was stated in the certificate was true, the assessee could have produced enough material from its own account books or bill books in support of it. The assumption which is challenged by Mr. Pathak is really no assumption made by the Tribunal but that is an inference drawn by it on the basis of the material with respect to the price of one gunny bag of groundnuts and the price of gunny bag itself. Even if that inference cannot be said to be correct, merely on the basis of that inference, it cannot be said that the finding which the Tribunal arrived at is perverse. As the question which is referred to us is really a question of fact and not a question of law, we decline to answer the same. Even if that inference cannot be said to be correct, merely on the basis of that inference, it cannot be said that the finding which the Tribunal arrived at is perverse. As the question which is referred to us is really a question of fact and not a question of law, we decline to answer the same. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.