Maintainability of tax reference petition fails where the State, not the Commissioner, files it and limitation has expired.

An application under section 25(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was held incompetent when filed in the name of the State of Bihar rather than the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The right to approach the High Court under that provision was confined to the same applicant who could validly move the Board under section 25(1), namely the dealer or the Commissioner, and the State was not a permitted applicant. Substitution of the Commissioner was refused because the error was not treated as a mere misdescription and the prescribed period for moving the court had already expired, so the application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, filed in the name of the State of Bihar instead of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was maintainable, and whether substitution of the Commissioner could be allowed by treating the description as a mere misdescription.

Analysis: The right to move the High Court under sub-section (2) of section 25 is confined to the applicant who could validly move the Board under sub-section (1), namely the dealer or the Commissioner. The State of Bihar is a distinct legal authority from the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the statute does not confer any right on the State to apply under sub-section (2). The attempt to substitute the Commissioner was rejected because the original applicant was not a case of mere misdescription and the period prescribed for moving the court had already expired.

Conclusion: The application was incompetent and not maintainable, and the prayer for amendment and substitution was rejected.

---