Sales tax classification of mineral turpentine oil turned on factual identity and binding precedent, with no referable legal question on penalty.

Mineral turpentine oil sold as thinner was treated as distinct from turpentine oil for sales tax classification under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, so the commodity fell in the residuary entry at 12% rather than the specific entry at 16%. The classification followed the factual finding on the nature of the product and was supported by binding jurisdictional precedent. Reduction of penalty under section 17(3) was also held to rest on appreciation of facts, so it did not give rise to an independent referable question of law. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and the Tribunal's view was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mineral turpentine oil sold as thinner was taxable under the residuary entry at 12% or under entry No. 20 at 16% under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. (ii) Whether reduction of penalty under section 17(3) gave rise to a referable question of law.

Issue (i): Taxability of the commodity depended on whether the product sold was mineral turpentine oil distinct from turpentine oil covered by the specific entry. The factual finding that the assessee sold mineral turpentine oil brought the case within the residuary entry, and the issue stood covered by the binding jurisdictional precedent holding such commodity to be distinct from turpentine oil.

Conclusion: The commodity was exigible to tax at 12% under the residuary entry and not at 16% under entry No. 20.

Issue (ii): The reduction of penalty was based on appreciation of facts. On that footing, no independent question of law arose for reference.

Conclusion: The reduction of penalty did not raise a referable question of law.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal's view on tax liability and penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of goods is concluded by a binding jurisdictional precedent and the issue turns on factual determination, the matter does not raise a referable question of law.

---