KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the assessee's application under section 22 (2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee made an application under section 22 (1) to the Tribunal to state the following four questions of law for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THIS application was refused by the learned Financial Commissioner, whose place is now taken by the Tribunal, by his order dated 14th September, 1966. In the opinion of the learned Financial Commissioner the first question was not one of law being merely a question of fact. The second question could not be referred because there was a wilful default on the part of the assessee though it may be due to misinterpretation of law. Regarding the third and the fourth questions, it was ruled that the assessee came within the definition of "dealer" in the Act and it was not necessary that his entire produce should be consumed in the State of Punjab and it was assumed that some of the production must be consumed in Punjab.

(3.) THE matters covered by the second, third and fourth questions sought to be referred, were not specifically dealt with by the Financial Commissioner in his order out of which it is claimed that these four questions of law already indicated arise. These questions were raised in the grounds of revision to the Financial Commissioner. They were also raised in the application to the Financial Commissioner for reference under section 22 (1) of the Sales Tax Act. In fact the Financial Commissioner dealt with them in his order disposing of section 22 (1) application. At one time we were of the view that only one question of law, namely, the first question arose out of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 22nd March, 1966, but in view of the decision of the Orissa High Court in Sitaram Kamal Prasad v. Collector of Sales Tax, Orissa [1955] 6 STC 339; AIR 1953 Orissa 7 and in view of the facts and circumstances how the revision and the reference application were disposed, we have come to hold that the suggested questions of law excepting the fourth question do arise out of the order of the Financial Commissioner. In Sitaram's case [1955] 6 STC 339; AIR 1953 Orissa 7 it was observed :