Reference on questions of law required where business character and continuity were left unresolved in sales tax assessment.

Questions of law arose where the Tribunal rejected a reference application without clearly determining whether the assessee was a joint Hindu family, a partnership, or a distinct continuing business under section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Because it had not recorded a clear finding on the character of the business or whether the later concern was a continuation of the earlier joint family business, the Court treated the unresolved legal characterisation as sufficient to require a reference. The refusal to refer the specified questions of law was therefore erroneous, and a reference under section 44 was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application for reference on the ground that no question of law arose from its decision, in the context of liability under section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.

Analysis: The application sought a direction requiring the Tribunal to refer specified questions of law arising from the assessment of the business carried on in the name of Kishanchand Govindram. The Tribunal had proceeded on the footing that the later business was separate, yet it had not clearly determined whether Kishanchand and Govindram were being assessed as members of the joint Hindu family or as partners of a separate firm, nor had it recorded a finding whether the business was a continuation of the earlier joint family business or a distinct business. In such circumstances, the Court held that questions of law did arise out of the Tribunal's decision and that the refusal to make a reference was erroneous.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the reference application; a reference under section 44 was warranted.

---