Limitation for tax reference turns on effective communication of the order, not mere office signing or undisclosed dispatch.

For limitation under the Sales Tax Act, an order is treated as passed only when it is effectively communicated or otherwise made known to the affected party so the party has a real opportunity to act; a mere office signature without notice is insufficient where it would defeat the statutory remedy. The discussion also notes that section 12(2) of the Limitation Act does not directly apply to a reference application, but limitation must still be construed fairly with the local law. The text further identifies questions of law arising from cancellation of a registration certificate, including the authority's power to review and the legality of the cancellation, as matters warranting a stated case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for reference under the Sales Tax Act was within limitation, having regard to the meaning of the expression "passing of the order" and the applicability of the Limitation Act. (ii) Whether questions of law arose out of the Board's order so as to justify a direction to state a case.

Issue (i): Whether the application for reference under the Sales Tax Act was within limitation, having regard to the meaning of the expression "passing of the order" and the applicability of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The period of limitation could not be computed merely from the date on which the order was signed in the office without notice to the assessee. The expression "passing of the order" was construed as requiring communication or at least a reasonable opportunity for the party affected to know the decision. The Court further held that section 12(2) of the Limitation Act did not apply to an application for reference under the Sales Tax Act, but the relevant local law and the Limitation Act provisions had to be read together so that limitation did not operate unfairly against a party who had no effective knowledge of the order.

Conclusion: The application was within time, and the Board's refusal on the ground of limitation was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether questions of law arose out of the Board's order so as to justify a direction to state a case.

Analysis: The order cancelling the registration certificate raised substantial legal questions, including whether the authority had power to review the earlier registration order, whether the order of cancellation was made in exercise of review jurisdiction, and whether the assessee's failure to appeal barred consideration of those questions. These were not merely factual matters but involved the authority's jurisdiction and the legality of the order itself. Since the Board had not satisfactorily addressed these issues, the refusal to state a case was unsustainable.

Conclusion: Questions of law did arise and the Board was required to state the case and refer those questions.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference succeeded, the Board's refusal was set aside, and a reference on the identified questions of law was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation purposes, an order is "passed" only when it is effectively communicated or made known to the affected party so that the party has a reasonable opportunity to act on it; a mere signature in the office without notice is not enough to start limitation where that construction would defeat the statutory remedy.

---