1998 (11) TMI 140 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the goods in question, namely, gelatine would fall within the description of chemical as described in Entry 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959? Held that - In the present case, what we find is that no additional material was adduced before the High Court for showing that gelatine is a chemical. The High Court did not examine the finding of the Tribunal holding that gelatine is not a chemical, which was based upon the materials on record. The findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal being the last fact finding body has to be given due weight unless it is found by the High Court that such a finding is either based upon no evidence or irrelevant evidence or incorrect principles. Admittedly, in the present case, no additional material was adduced by the Revenue. As such, the finding recorded by the High Court that gelatine comes under the description of chemical is not sustainable in law. We accordingly set aside the judgments under appeals. The appeals are allowed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "chemical" under Entry 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revising appellate orders.
3. Weight given to the findings of the Appellate Tribunal as the last fact-finding body.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "chemical" under Entry 138:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of gelatine under Entry 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially held that gelatine, derived from ossein, did not qualify as a chemical under the said entry. However, the Joint Commissioner, in a suo moto revision, determined that gelatine fell within the definition of a chemical. The High Court, without additional material, upheld this view. The Supreme Court, after considering expert opinions and materials on record, found that gelatine did not meet the criteria of a chemical as defined in the chemical dictionary. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the findings of the Appellate Tribunal, the final fact-finding body, which had concluded that gelatine was not a chemical. As no new evidence was presented, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that gelatine did not fall under the description of a chemical as per Entry 138.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court in revising appellate orders:
The High Court had the authority to review appellate orders issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this case, M/s. Protein Products of India Ltd. and the appellant challenged the revisional orders of the Joint Commissioner before the High Court. The appellant pointed out that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously determined that gelatine was not a chemical, a decision that had become final between the parties as the Revenue did not appeal against it. Despite this, the High Court, relying on certain decisions, concluded that gelatine fell under the category of a chemical without considering the Tribunal's findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was not sustainable in law as no new evidence was presented, and the findings of the final fact-finding body, the Tribunal, were not appropriately weighed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court.

Issue 3: Weight given to the findings of the Appellate Tribunal:
The Appellate Tribunal's role as the final fact-finding body was crucial in this case. The Tribunal had extensively examined expert opinions and materials related to gelatine, concluding that it did not fit the definition of a chemical. Despite this, the High Court did not give due weight to the Tribunal's findings and upheld the Joint Commissioner's revisional orders. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting the conclusions of the last fact-finding body unless such findings were based on no evidence, irrelevant evidence, or incorrect principles. As the High Court did not introduce any new material to challenge the Tribunal's findings, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the interpretation of the term "chemical" under Entry 138 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of the findings of the final fact-finding body, the Appellate Tribunal. The Court highlighted the necessity for additional material to overturn such findings and set aside the High Court's decision, ruling that gelatine did not fall within the definition of a chemical as per the relevant entry.

← Previous Next →