TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V Raje, Mr Durgesh G Desai, Mr Yeshwant J Patil i/b, Ms Jindagi Shah for the Respondent. 2. By Judgment and Order dated 31 December 2005,the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following question to this Court for our decision:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the product 'Byozyme' is a Fertiliser covered under Entry C-I-4 of the Bombay sales Tax Act, 1959, and not a 'Plant Growth Promoter' covered by Schedule Etry C-II-85 taxable at the rate of 8% as determined by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai." 3. The facts and circumstances in which this reference came to be made are set out in the statement of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence produced by the assessee, in the absence of any evidence laid on behalf of the Revenue to show that the assessee's product could be classified as plant growth promoter, we fail to comprehend how the Revenue, could be said to have discharged the onus which lay upon it show that the assessee's products were classifiable under Schedule entry C-II-85. 9. In the above circumstances, it would be difficult to answer the referred question in favour of the Revenue or against the assessee. 10. In the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd (supra), the issue involved was whether the rings punched from asbestos boards fell under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that it was not in dispute, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n asbestos was of some relevance. So was the affidavit evidence that explained the character and use of the said rings. It was wrong of the Tribunal to find that the deponents of these affidavits were "not the right persons to give an opinion on the type of products" with which it was concerned. Regrettably, the Tribunal's order under appeal shows that it was not fully conscious of the dispassionate judicial function it was expected to perform, and it must be quashed. 13. Thus, Hindustan Ferodo Ltd (supra) is an authority for the proposition that the onus to establish the product falls within a particular tariff entry is always on the Revenue. Without discharging such onus, the Revenue cannot insist upon a particular classification. Besi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction when considering a reference. 16. The question referred, at least in this case, turns significantly on factual aspects rather than the law. At the highest, the question referred could be regarded as a mixed question of law and fact. This Court, while exercising its reference jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunal but exercises jurisdiction akin to that of judicial review. In the exercise of such jurisdiction, it will be difficult to answer the referred question in favour of the Revenue or against the assessee. 17. In the case of G Ventakasami Naidu & Co. Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax 1959 (35) ITR 594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts proved in the case, its correctness or validity is open to challenge in reference proceedings within narrow limits. The assessee or the revenue can contend that the inference has been drawn on considering inadmissible evidence or after excluding admissible and relevant evidence; if the High Court is satisfied that the inference is the result of improper admission or exclusion of evidence, it would be justified in examining the correctness of the conclusion. It may also be open to the party to challenge a conclusion of fact drawn by the Tribunal on the ground that it is not supported by any legal evidence; or that the impugned conclusion drawn from the relevant facts is not rationally possible; and if such a plea is established, the court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case favouring the assessee was based on any inadmissible evidence or after excluding admissible and relevant evidence. This is also not a case where any legal evidence does not support the conclusion of fact drawn by the Tribunal or that such conclusion was not rationally possible or perverse. This is also not a case where the Tribunal has committed any error on primary questions of fact or has applied the relevant legal principles incorrectly. As noted earlier, while exercising reference jurisdiction, this Court does not act as an appellate forum. 20. Therefore, on the mere ground that upon reappreciation of evidence, some other view could have been taken by the fact-finding authorities, we cannot, in the exercise of this limited j....