The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2216-19 of 1997
Petitioner: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent: Eicher Goodearth Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2216-19 of 1997
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 11, 2000
Head Note:
Constitution Law
Articles 226, 136 – Sales Tax matter – Findings of fact by Tribunal – Challenge on the ground that the findings were arbitrary alone not sufficient ground for the High Court to reverse the findings of Tribunal – High Courts interference not justified in fact circumstances.
Articles 226, 136 – Sales Tax matter – Findings of fact by Tribunal – Challenge on the ground that the findings were arbitrary alone not sufficient ground for the High Court to reverse the findings of Tribunal – High Courts interference not justified in fact circumstances.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. We find in this matter that the High Court has gone into questions of fact and reversed the findings of the final fact finding authority, namely the Tribunal. There was no justification for it to do so. A mere statement in the grounds of appeal before the High Court that the findings of fact were arbitrary is not enough nor is the observation made by the High Court in regard to one of the three items that are in dispute before us, namely insurance, that the findings thereon were perverse. We find, on the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal, no justification for the High Court’s interference with the order under appeal before it, insofar as it related to the items of insurance, service performance deposit and defective ‘C’ Form for the two years in question. The civil appeals are allowed and the order under appeal is set aside, insofar as these three items are concerned.
2. No order as to costs.
1. We find in this matter that the High Court has gone into questions of fact and reversed the findings of the final fact finding authority, namely the Tribunal. There was no justification for it to do so. A mere statement in the grounds of appeal before the High Court that the findings of fact were arbitrary is not enough nor is the observation made by the High Court in regard to one of the three items that are in dispute before us, namely insurance, that the findings thereon were perverse. We find, on the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal, no justification for the High Court’s interference with the order under appeal before it, insofar as it related to the items of insurance, service performance deposit and defective ‘C’ Form for the two years in question. The civil appeals are allowed and the order under appeal is set aside, insofar as these three items are concerned.
2. No order as to costs.
