Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 74 and 75 of 1973, decided on 23rd June, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑9‑1971 in P.C.R. Nos. 106 and 105 of 1971).

‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Licensees claiming exemption on certain sales‑‑Concurrent findings on question of fact by two appellate forums not suffering from any legal infirmity‑‑Rightly upheld by High Court‑‑Appeals to Supreme Court being without any force, dismissed.

Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.

‑These appeals through leave of this Court are directed against judgment, dated 30th September, 1971 of the Lahore High Court, whereby two income‑tax references were decided in favour of tile respondent assessee. Tire question sought to be raised before tile High Court were:

"(1) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, tile Tribunal rightly maintained the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner when the sales claimed to be exempt under section 4 were made to bogus parties and there was actually no evidence of actual delivery of the goods to those parties

(2) Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner modifying penalties under section 12(4) for the years 1955‑56 and 1956‑57 was rightly maintained by the Tribunal

The respondent Company were admittedly licensee as is required under the Sales Tax Act (No.III of 1951). They claimed exemption on certain sales made to three parties who also it was asserted by the assessee were themselves licensees with licences Nos 16159, 13605 and 13056. The Sales Tax Officer was of the view that neither there were any sales made by the asses5ee Company nor the so‑called purchasers were licensees rather all this was treated as fake. However, the respondent's appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with findings of fact against the Department on both the issues relating to the sales and the genuineness of the purchasers being licensees. The Department approached the Income‑Tax Appellate Tribunal which also upheld the appellate order.

We asked the learned counsel as to how the High Court could have interfered with concurrent findings of fact oil the question of the sales being genuine or not and the purchasers being genuine licensees or not He failed to render any satisfactory reply except that it was necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to hold an inquiry on both the issues and he having held the inquiry gave findings of fact on both the issues against the respondent assessee. But this again amounts to begging the question, namely, that the two appellate forums having disagreed (on findings regarding questions of fact) with the Sales 'Fax Officer, the findings which had to be assailed before the High Court by the Department, were of the appellate forums and they undoubtedly did not suffer from any legal infirmity, at least none has been shown during the hearing of these appeals. We accordingly finding no force in these appeals dismiss the same. As the respondent assessee is not represented, therefore, there shall be no order as to costs.

M.I. Appeals 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.