1982 (2) TMI 270 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Legality of Tribunal's finding on the business ownership.
2. Confirmation of tax levy on the applicant's turnover.
3. Confirmation of penalties under section 36(3A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Legality of Tribunal's Finding on Business Ownership

The first issue concerns whether the Tribunal's finding that the business conducted by Chimanlal was actually that of the applicant was legally valid. The Court noted that the Tribunal's question was not a question of law but rather a factual determination. The Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including *Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. S.P. Jain* and *Dhirajlal Girdharlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay*, which outline circumstances under which a High Court can intervene in Tribunal findings. These include instances where the Tribunal's findings are based on no evidence, are inconsistent with evidence, or involve improper admission or exclusion of evidence. The Court found that the Tribunal's question was vague and uncertain, making it impossible to determine what evidence was considered irrelevant or ignored. Consequently, the Court concluded that the first question was not a question of law.

2. Confirmation of Tax Levy on Applicant's Turnover

The second issue was contingent on the first. It questioned whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the tax levy on the applicant's turnover based on purchases made by M/s. Anil & Co. The Court noted that this question depended on the resolution of the first issue. Since the first issue was not a question of law, the second issue also could not be treated as a question of law.

3. Confirmation of Penalties Under Section 36(3A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959

The third issue involved the legality of penalties imposed under section 36(3A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. This question also depended on the resolution of the first two issues. Given that the Court found the first issue to be non-legal and the second issue dependent on the first, the third issue similarly could not be treated as a question of law.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that all three questions referred by the Tribunal were not questions of law. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, is limited to deciding questions of law and not questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. Consequently, the reference was rejected, and the applicant-assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the State Government.