Fact-finding in sales tax disputes must rest with the Tribunal, which must consider all evidence before deciding whether rubber trees are timber.

Where tax liability turned on whether standing rubber trees constituted timber, the Tribunal had to examine the evidence and could not refuse consideration simply because earlier High Court decisions existed. As the final fact-finding body, the Tribunal was required to decide that factual question on the materials placed before it. The High Court should not itself have determined that issue in the first instance; the proper course was to set aside the Tribunal's order and remit the matter for fresh consideration of the evidence. The impugned judgments and orders were accordingly set aside and the matters remitted to the Tribunal for decision on the factual issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was required to consider the materials and evidence produced by the assessees on the question whether standing rubber trees constituted timber for levy of sales tax. (ii) Whether the High Court ought to have decided the factual issue itself or remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was required to consider the materials and evidence produced by the assessees on the question whether standing rubber trees constituted timber for levy of sales tax.

Analysis: The materials placed before the Tribunal were relevant to the factual determination whether rubber trees were timber. The Tribunal could not refuse to examine that material merely because of earlier High Court decisions. The fact-finding function on this question lay with the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence and decide the factual question on the basis of the material placed before it.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court ought to have decided the factual issue itself or remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

Analysis: Since the Tribunal was the final fact-finding body, the High Court should not itself have determined whether the rubber trees were timber. The proper course was to set aside the Tribunal's order and remit the matters for fresh consideration of the evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court ought to have remanded the matters to the Tribunal instead of deciding the factual issue itself.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments and orders were set aside and the matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the factual question after considering the evidence produced by both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a factual issue is material to tax liability, the final fact-finding authority must itself consider the evidence, and a superior court should ordinarily remit the matter rather than determine that factual issue in the first instance.

---