1978 (11) TMI 129 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the 24 transactions amounting to Rs. 8,77,064 were inter-State sales or consignment sales.
2. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.
3. Whether the Tribunal's findings can be reappraised by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the 24 transactions amounting to Rs. 8,77,064 were inter-State sales or consignment sales:
The Tribunal determined that the transactions in question were inter-State sales and not consignment sales as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on the reappraisal of evidence, including the sale list, affidavits, and trading book entries produced by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had collaborated with a party from Rajkot to whom the goods were sold, and these goods were then dispatched to Rajasthan based on the instructions from the Rajkot party. The Tribunal emphasized that the dispatch instructions were integral to the contract of sale, leading to the movement of goods from Gujarat to Rajasthan. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the transactions as inter-State sales.

2. Jurisdiction and scope of the High Court under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969:
The High Court's jurisdiction under section 69 is limited to providing opinions on questions of law referred to it by the Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority. The Court does not function as an appellate body to reappraise evidence or alter factual findings made by the Tribunal. This principle was reinforced by referencing several Supreme Court rulings, including Lakshmi Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, and Damodar Valley Corporation v. State of Bihar, which clarified that the High Court's role is advisory and confined to the legal questions posed.

3. Whether the Tribunal's findings can be reappraised by the High Court:
The High Court reiterated that it cannot reappraise evidence or challenge the Tribunal's factual findings unless there is no evidence to support such findings or if they are unreasonable or perverse. The Court cited precedents like Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., which established that the High Court must accept the Tribunal's findings of fact and answer the legal questions based on those facts. The High Court noted that the assessee did not apply for a reference of specific questions under section 66(1) challenging the Tribunal's findings, and thus, the Court must proceed on the assumption that the Tribunal's findings are correct.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the question of whether the transactions were inter-State sales or consignment sales is a pure question of fact. Since the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse, the High Court could not interfere. The Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, affirming that the transactions were inter-State sales. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.

Reference Answered in the Affirmative.