JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. The State Revenue has brought this revision case under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, asking us almost in disguise to reappreciate the factual position in regard to which the Tribunal is the final authority and that too as to whether the assessee carried on the business of manufacture of bricks. The limits of our statutory jurisdiction under section 41 of the Act is only to find out as to whether the Tribunal has failed to decide any question of law or has either erroneously decided any question of law. The phrase is "either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law". It is obvious that this rules out interference with the erroneous factual decision. This is necessary when the State Revenue is asking this Court to consider whether the assessee was carrying out the business of manufacture of bricks as stated at the outset. The assessment year is 1984-85. All that we find in the first instance, from the order of the Additional Agricultural Sales Tax Officer, II, Alwaye is that the assessee had obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the Indian Bank, Alwaye for his business on November 21, 1984. This is followed by a statement that normally bricks manufacturing is carried out from October to June. Consistently the assessee had contended that he has no brick business and he is not a brick dealer. Then what we get is the conduct of local enquiry regarding the dealer and an understanding therefrom that the assessee was doing business at Kolencherry during 1984-85 and also in 1985-86 and 1986-87. This was also at Naduvannoor in the lands belonging to Palakkappilly family. From this assessment order no other material is placed on record about the nature of the enquiry and about the factual position of the assessee conducting the business and the order is based on the above two aspects. Before the first appellate authority Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam the assessee submitted that he has a trade of welder and working as a welder at Telco at Alwaye. In fact a certificate to that extent by the Executive Officer was also produced emphasising also that the assessee was not a licencee of the concerned Panchayat during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. In fact a certificate to that extent by the Executive Officer was also produced emphasising also that the assessee was not a licencee of the concerned Panchayat during the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. It was urged on behalf of the Revenue before the appellate authority also that the assessee had taken a loan from the bank for business and it was revealed in the local enquiry that he was conducting business. The appellate authority rejected the contention of the assessee that he was actually an employee in Telco, Alwaye with a remark that the evidence of a certificate that the assessee was an employee in Telco, Alwaye could not be evidenced that he had done the business. Similarly the certificate of the Panchayat Executive Officer is also rejected by the first appellate authority with the reason that even the certificate does not record that the appellant has not done any business but merely records that the assessee was not a licencee of that Panchayat. It is in these circumstances it was for the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam to consider the matter. The Panchayat certificate dated October 30, 1991 was taken into consideration and was treated as a primary record that the assessee was doing any business. The Tribunal also considered that the proceedings of section 17(3) notice revealed total lack of application of mind because of the printed contents thereof. The Tribunal has cancelled the assessment order by allowing the appeal of the assessee before it. Apart from the position that these are questions purely of facts, certain factual aspects staring in the face of the record, even if the question is left to us to consider on our own was justified reluctance to interfere in the matter. The material on record shows that the assessee is actually employed as a welder in a well-known industrial concern in the name and style of Telco at Alwaye. The certificate of the Panchayat also shows that no licence was given to him for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 clinging on a stray that the assessee made an application for loan for business, not even specifying the nature thereof. The department has sought to contend that the assessee was a manufacturer and dealer in bricks. The certificate of the Panchayat also shows that no licence was given to him for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 clinging on a stray that the assessee made an application for loan for business, not even specifying the nature thereof. The department has sought to contend that the assessee was a manufacturer and dealer in bricks. Reading of the three orders also does not show the particulars of the enquiry which is not an impossibility to place on record and urge specifically in regard thereto. Independently also we feel that there is no material on record to create situations of probabilities that the assessee was carrying on any business activity relating to the manufacture and dealing with bricks much less during the course of the period of the assessment years in question. For all the above reasons tax revision case stands dismissed. Petitions dismissed.