Limitation for reference applications and mandatory reference of legal questions cannot be defeated by a mere clarity objection.

The High Court held that an application for reference was within limitation where the explanation for delay in refiling was accepted, and it rejected the contention that time ran from mere intimation of the Financial Commissioner's order. It also stated that when a question of law arises from the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal should not refuse reference merely because it considers the point to be clear or unarguable. The application was therefore treated as timely, and the Tribunal was directed to refer the legal question for opinion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was within limitation. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was bound to refer the question whether the assessment order dated 24th July, 1961 fell under section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the application under section 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was within limitation.

Analysis: The Court accepted the explanation for the delay in refiling and held, following its earlier decision on a similar limitation question, that the application originally filed on 8th May, 1968 was within time. The objection that limitation had run from mere intimation of the Financial Commissioner's order was rejected.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the application was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was bound to refer the question whether the assessment order dated 24th July, 1961 fell under section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The Court found that the proposed question of law did arise from the Tribunal's order. Since the controversy turned on a question of law, the Tribunal ought not to have refused reference on the ground that the point was clear and left no room for argument.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was directed to refer the stated question of law for the Court's opinion.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining a reference on the merits after the limitation objection was overruled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a question of law arises from the Tribunal's order, refusal to make a reference cannot be sustained merely because the Tribunal considers the point to be clear; limitation for a reference application may also be computed on the basis that the application is filed within time notwithstanding a prior intimation if the court accepts the filing as timely in the circumstances of the case.

---