JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by A. P. RAVANI, J. - This is a reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The applicant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It carries on business of manufacturing of aluminium utensils, circles and certain other articles. It sells these articles for the purpose of its business. It also purchases aluminium scrap from different sources. A surprise visit was made by the officers of the Sales Tax Department on August 11, 1975, at the business premises of the applicant. Certain account-books and papers relating to the samvat year 2031 were seized. After scrutiny of the record seized, a notice was issued as regards the assessment of suppressed transactions. Ultimately the Sales Tax Officer found numerous suppressed transactions and assessed the same to tax. The Sales Tax Officer found that turnover of sales of Rs. 26,82,537 was suppressed and it was not shown. He also found that there were suppressed purchases of Rs. 17,88,817. These purchases were not shown. He also found that the books of account were not correct and complete. As a corollary of this finding, he held that the returns filed on the basis of such books of account were not correct. He, therefore, enhanced the suppressed turnover of sales by 10 per cent and assessed the applicant-dealer accordingly for the samvat year 2031. He also ordered to impose penalty under the provisions of sections 45(2)(c), 45(6) and 46(2) of the Gujarat Act. This order was passed in respect of the assessment under the Gujarat Act as well as under the Central Act. 2. The applicant-dealer preferred two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who allowed the appeals partly inasmuch as he ordered to remove partially the purchase tax levied on certain amounts and reduced the penalty in view of this finding. As per the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the liability of the dealer to pay tax and penalty came to Rs. 2,54,725.62. 3. The dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal (Second Appeals Nos. 144 and 145 of 1979). One appeal was in relation to the assessment under the Gujarat Act and another appeal was in relation to the assessment under the Central Act. 2,54,725.62. 3. The dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal (Second Appeals Nos. 144 and 145 of 1979). One appeal was in relation to the assessment under the Gujarat Act and another appeal was in relation to the assessment under the Central Act. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment and order passed by the Tribunal on December 23, 1981. Thereafter the dealer submitted two separate applications for making reference to this Court. In the applications, the applicant-dealer requested to refer as many as 13 questions to this Court. However, after hearing the parties, the Tribunal held that the following two questions were required to be referred to this Court its opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that certain transactions were transactions of inter-State sales, as the department had not conclusively proved that the said transactions were transactions of inter-State sales by discharging the burden of proof which lay upon it ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sales tax authorities were not required to prove conclusively certain sales, purchases or inter-State sales and that they were entitled to make inferences, interpretations and guess work on the basis of the seized records of M/s. Matangi Transport Company and the materials seized from the applicant ?" 4. We have been taken through the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and other relevant records. The Sales Tax Officer relied upon the material collected at the time of search of the business premises of the dealer. Of course the material collected included the books of account and other records of one M/s. Matangi Transport Company. It may be noted that certain material was also collected pursuant to the search made by the officers of the sales tax department at the business premises of M/s. Matangi Transport Company on the same day. Simply because the account books and other materials belonged to a third party, it does not cease to be relevant for the purpose of assessment of the turnover of sales and purchases of the dealer. The Tribunal has held that the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner have committed no error in relying upon these materials. Simply because the account books and other materials belonged to a third party, it does not cease to be relevant for the purpose of assessment of the turnover of sales and purchases of the dealer. The Tribunal has held that the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner have committed no error in relying upon these materials. Whether or not a particular piece of evidence has been rightly taken into consideration is not a question of law. This is in the ribbon of appreciation of evidence. The first question framed and referred to this Court is not a question of law. It is not a case of no evidence or that of any perverse finding or unreasonable inference drawn on the basis of the facts existing on the record. In this view of the matter, the question referred to the High Court is a question of fact. Hence it is not required to be answered by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have not been able to point out as to how this question can be said to be a question of law. 5. So far as the second question is concerned, once it is held that the first question is a question of fact and no question of law is involved, the second question also is not required to be answered. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our answer to the first question is that it is a question of fact and no question of law is involved therein. Hence it is not required to be answered. Similarly as far as the second question is concerned, in view of our answer to the first question, this question is also not required to be answered. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.