Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to require the Commissioner to refer questions of law under section 32(5) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, when the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner had been treated as time-barred and the alleged question of limitation had not been raised before the Commissioner.
Analysis: The application for reference was rejected as incompetent, because the Commissioner had not refused to refer any question of law on the footing that no such question arose; he had proceeded on the basis that the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner was time-barred. The petitioner's application for reference did not challenge the finding of limitation, nor was the limitation point included in the questions sought to be referred. Question 2 assumed that the appeal had been disposed of on the merits without notice, and did not cover the distinct issue whether the appeal itself was barred by limitation. Since the petitioner had not asked the Commissioner to refer that question, the Court could not direct a reference under section 32(5). The Assistant Commissioner's observation on the taxability of tobacco leaf was treated as unnecessary to the disposal of the time-barred appeal and could not found a reference.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a requisition for reference, and the petition failed.