COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE
This matter involves civil petitions for special leave to appeal against orders of the High Court regarding whether motor car springs and kerosene oil stoves are products of hammer work or foundry and therefore exempt from sales tax under specific government notifications. The core legal question is whether the manufacturing process of a particular article constitutes a question of law or a question of fact. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the process used for manufacturing an article is purely a question of fact and not a question of law capable of being agitated in reference proceedings before the High Court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by the Tribunal regarding manufacturing processes cannot be interfered with as questions of law in reference proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
- Whether the question of what process is used for the manufacture of a particular article is a question of fact or a question of law?
- Are motor car springs products of hammer work entitled to sales tax exemption?
- Are kerosene oil stoves products of foundry and hammer work entitled to sales tax exemption?
ORDER
1. Nasim Hasan Shah, J.-This order will govern Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 710 and 711 of 1976, 200 of 1977 and 155 and 156 of 1978 as the question involved in all them is similar, namely, in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos, 710 and 711 of 1976 whether springs for motor cars are products of hammer work and, therefore, exempt from sales tax vide Item No. 15 of Notification No. 3 dated 16-3-52; and in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 200 of 1977, 155 and 156 of 1978 whether kerosine oil stoves are products of foundry and hammer work and, therefore, exempt from sales tax under Item No. 15 of Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-51.
2. The High Court held in all these cases that the question raised was one of fact and that the Tribunal had found as a matter of fact that the articles in question were products of hammer work and no issue of law was involved. Clearly the question as to what process is used for manufacture of a particular article is a question of fact and not a question of law, which could have been agitated before the High Court in reference proceedings.
3. The orders passed by the High Court in refusing to interfere with the orders of Income Tax Tribunal being perfectly correct, these petitions (C. P. S. L. As. Nos. 710 and 711/76, 200/77 and 155 and 156/78 directed against the said orders must, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.