Succession to business under sales tax law not proved where evidence showed only tenancy transfer and premises occupation.

Succession to a business under section 19(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was not established on the evidence. The correspondence showed only that the company took possession of the premises, with the tenancy surrendered and re-let to it; that did not prove a transfer of the business as a going concern or payment for goodwill, stock-in-trade, or other business-transfer indicia. The High Court also reiterated that, in reference jurisdiction, it cannot reappraise evidence as if it were an appellate court unless the Tribunal's conclusion discloses an error of law. The Tribunal's finding was therefore left undisturbed and the reference failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-company succeeded to the business of the transferor within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the basis of the correspondence and oral evidence on record.

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the company took possession of the premises from 1 January 1962 and that the tenancy had been surrendered to the landlord and re-let to the company. The letters relied upon by the department did not establish a transfer of the business as a going concern, nor did they show payment for goodwill, stock-in-trade, or other indicia of business transfer. The Court held that there was no material showing any error of law in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence, and that in reference jurisdiction it could not reappraise the evidence as a court of appeal.

Conclusion: The respondent-company was not proved to have succeeded to the business of the transferor within section 19(4), and the question was answered in the affirmative against the department.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that no transfer of business was established was left undisturbed, and the reference failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference, the High Court will not reappreciate evidence to substitute its own findings of fact unless the Tribunal's conclusion discloses an error of law; mere tenancy transfer or occupation of premises does not by itself establish succession to a business under section 19(4).

---