Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 20‑4‑76 of the Lahore High Court in Tax Reference No. 158 of 1971).

Civil Petition No. 711 of 1976

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 20‑4‑76 of the Lahore High Court in Tax Reference No. 19 of 1968).

Civil Petition No. 200 of 1977

(On appeal from the judgement dated 17‑1‑77 of the Lahore High Court in P. T. R. No. 1 of 1977).

Civil Petitions Nos. 155 and 156 of 1978

(On appeal from the judgement dated 9‑1‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in Tax References Nos. 32 and 33 of 1977).

Civil Petitions Nos. 710, 711 of 1976; 200 of 1977 and 155, 156 of 1978, decided on 20th February, 1980.

Ss. 7 & 17 read with Notification No. 3, dated 16‑3‑1952, Item No. 15 and Notification No. 9, dated 27‑6‑1951, Item No. 15 --Exemption of products of hammer work and foundry‑Question as to what process is used for manufacture of a particular article‑Held, a question of fact and not of law which could be agitated before High Court in reference proceedings.

Abdul Hague Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions).

Nemo for Respondent (in all Petitions).

Date of hearing: 20th February, 1980.

. ‑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 of 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 ride Item No. IS 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.

The High Court held in all these cases that the question raised was one, no 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 it 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.

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.

Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.