TMI Blog1946 (4) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y income derived from...............land by ****** (ii) the performance by a cultivator..................of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator..................to render the produce raised..............by him fit to be taken to market; or (iii) the sale by a cultivator..................of the produce raised..............in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in sub-clause (ii). The rest of the section is immaterial. Although in the reference the Tribunal has referred to sub-clause (ii) it appears that the correct reference should be to Section 2(1)(b)( iii) of the Act. The income in question is the result of sale of gul by the assessee company. It is not income derived by the performance of the process by the assessee as mentioned in sub-clause (ii). The material question still remains and is to be considered in two parts : (1) Whether the process in ordinarily employed by a cultivator and (2) Whether it is employed to render the produce raised by him fit to be taken to market. When the matter was first submitted by the Tribunal for the Court's opinion the necessary facts from whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar-cane by means of crushers worked by an oil engine whereas the cultivators generally work the crushers by bullocks. In the further agreed statement of facts which the parties have put before us in paragraph 5 it is stated as follows: These crushers and oil engine were used for crushing the sugar-cane and extracting juice therefrom and for boiling the juice. The second statement in the second report of the Inspector is this: From the facts it can be said that the sugar-cane is marketable, without being turned into gul. A further statement although it appears to be hearsay is in these terms: It is also reported that the gul manufactured by the assessee company is of the highest degree. It fetches more price as compared to the prices obtained by other manufacturers in the market. The company's gul is said to be of very good colour (sic) highest percentage of sugar as special chemicals are added by the company. The first point discussed before us was whether having regard to the conclusion mentioned in the further statement of facts it is open to the Commissioner to contend that the requirements of the definition section have not been fulfilled. It was argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases in which Commissioners, having had proved or admitted before them a series of facts, may deduce therefrom further conclusions which are themselves conclusions of pure fact. But in such cases the determination in point of law is that the facts proved or admitted provide evidence to support the Commissioners' conclusion. On behalf of the Commissioner it was urged before us that the Court has therefore jurisdiction to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for the conclusion of pure fact, as indicated by the Lord Chancellor in the above sentence. In my opinion this is not a correct reading of that judgment. The Lord Chancellor only meant, what has always been understood in matters of this kind to mean, namely whether there was evidence on which the conclusion of fact recorded by the fact finding authority could be based. In the same case at page 36, Viscount Maugham stated as follows :- The question which emerges is whether there are any facts stated in the case which justify the course which the Commissioners took. Similarly Lord Porter in the concluding part of his judgment stated as follows:- In the present case my view is that the splitting up o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be assessed, is not sugarcane but gul. Reading the words used in the definition section with their natural meaning they must mean that the produce must retain its original character in spite of the process unless there is no market for selling it in that condition. If there is no market to sell the produce then any process which is ordinarily employed to render it fit to reach the market, where it can be sold, would be covered by the definition. In the present case the statement of case itself discloses that the sugar-cane grown by the assessee company can either be sold to other factories or utilised by the factory to produce gul or sugar. The Tribunal has further found that small cultivators sell their sugar-cane to factory owners. To put it in other words every owner of a sugar-cane factory manufacturing sugar or gul does not necessarily own sugar-cane fields. Conversely growers of sugar-cane, i.e., farmers, do not necessarily own machinery which converts sugar-cane to gul or sugar. One important factor is noticed in the present case. It is stated that the sugar-cane grown by the assessee company is not fit for chewing. That however does not prevent there being a market in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
