Plant and machinery classification and declaration compliance under sales tax notification turned on facts, not a substantial question of law.

Factual findings that electrical goods qualified as plant and machinery for use in manufacture were upheld because they were supported by the record and not shown to be perverse. The court treated the reduced-rate claim under the section 41 notification as turning on factual compliance with the declaration conditions, and held that no substantial question of law arose where no contravention was established on evidence. The reference application was therefore rejected, with the Tribunal's findings left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the products in question fell within the expression "plant and machinery" for the purposes of Entry 88 of Group A under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the claim to the reduced rate of tax under the notification issued under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 gave rise to any substantial question of law in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the products in question fell within the expression "plant and machinery" for the purposes of Entry 88 of Group A under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The finding that the electrical items answered the description of plant and machinery was based on the record and the factual nature of the goods. The Tribunal had also held that the articles were used in manufacture as plant and machinery. No material was shown to demonstrate that the finding was incorrect, perverse, or unsupported by evidence. The issue therefore turned on facts rather than on a debatable question of law.

Conclusion: The finding that the goods were plant and machinery was upheld and no substantial question of law arose on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim to the reduced rate of tax under the notification issued under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 gave rise to any substantial question of law in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The benefit under the notification depended on the factual position that the goods were plant and machinery meant for use in manufacture. The Assessing Authority had accepted the respondent's case, and the revisional order did not record any determination of contravention of the declaration conditions. Whether there was any breach of the declaration was itself a factual matter not examined on evidence. In these circumstances, the second proviso to section 41(2) did not generate a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the claim did not warrant reference.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's factual findings were left undisturbed, and the application for reference was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding that goods are plant and machinery, when supported by the record and not shown to be perverse, does not give rise to a substantial question of law; equally, a disputed contravention of declaration conditions under section 41(2) is a matter of fact unless shown otherwise.

---