1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--Both these cases will be disposed of by this judgment as the parties and questions of law are common except the assessment year which is different.
2. ' The respondents submitted their returns of sale in respect of years 1970-71 and 1971-72 and claimed exemption on the plea that as they own 20 power looms their products are exempted from Sales Tax under Notification No,9 dated 27-6-1951. The Sales Tax Officer held that the assessees have done further process on their products so they are not qualified for exemption except on sales of gray cotton canvas. In appeal filed by the respondents the Tribunal following its own judgment and in view of the concession made by the counsel for the Department in respect of sales of waste and tarpaulin about which the respondents did not claim exemption, allowed the appeal by order dated 5-9-1975. The Department filed an application under section 17 (1) of the Sales Tax Act for referring the questions to this Court but by order dated 20-3-1978 it was dismissed. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:- "It is now stated by the learned Commissioner of Sales-tax in the statement of the case that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of items other than Tarpauline is not correct inasmuch as further manufacturing processes are involved in the manufacture thereof and the ratio of the decision in the case of Tarpaulin equally applies to them. It may, however, be observed that the Sales-tax Officer in his impugned orders, besides making a passing observation to the effect that the assessee had done further process on these products and hence they were not qualified for exemption, has not mentioned, specifically as to what processes were actually applied by the appellants so as to take these products out of the purview of item No,21 of S.T. Notification No,9 dated 27th June, 1951. The case of the Department had thus not proceeded even a step further than what was urged at the time of hearing of the appeals STA No,393 of 1971-72 and STA No, 189 of 1971- 72 in respect of the assessm ent years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Having admitted the fact the assessee's products were of power loom units equipped with not more than 20 power looms it was for the assessing officer to have brought the relevant data on record so as to convince the appellate authority that the items manufactured by the applicant had in fact undergone other manufacturing process and that they had ceased to remain products merely of power loom unit with no more than 20 power looms. But he did not do so."
3. ' The Department then filed the present application praying that the following two questions arise from the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5-9-1975 which may be answered:-
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that items other than tarpaulin were exempt from the sales-tax under item 21 of Sales-tax Notification No, 9, dated 27-6-1951.
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing the Sales-tax Officer to abide by the directions of the Tribunal given in its consolidated order in S.TA. Nos. 393 and 189 of 1971-72 dated 15-12-1971, instead of setting aside the Sales-tax Officer's order and directing him to make an enquiry into all the items manufactured by the assessee after making proper enquiries and giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the necessary evidence."
4. ' A perusal of the relevant orders and facts makes it clear that the respondents had claimed exemption in terms of notification stated above in respect of sales of products manufactured by them except on sales of waste in the year 1970-71 and tarpaulin in the year 1971-72. It is not disputed that respondent's products are manufactured by power looms units equipped with not more than 20 power looms. Sales Tax Officer cursorily mentioned in the order that although there are 20 power looms run by the respondents the respondents have done further process on their products and therefore, they are not qualified for any exemption. This observation of the Sales Tax Officer was not based on any evidence on record. The Department at no stage even cared to produce such evidence to show that the products in respect of which sales return had been filed had undergone any process before they were sold by the respondents. It is well settled that any person claiming exemption must first establish that his case falls within the four corners of exemption notification. But if the department asserts certain facts to urge that the assessee is not entitled to exemption then they must prove such facts which take out the assessee's case from the ambit of notification allowing exemption. In the absence of such an evidence on record the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the department.
5. ' As is obvious from the order of the Tribunal reproduced above, even the Department had conceded to the respondent's claim for exemption. In view of the admitted facts and the concession made by the Department it was not necessary for the Tribunal to have remanded the case for further evidence and investigation. The Department have failed to show how in the facts of this case it could be remanded by the Tribunal.
6. ' In our view the questions framed by the applicant do not arise from the order of the Tribunal.
7. ' We, therefore, reject the application. ' revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.