Prior Board view does not bar legal reference where a question of law arises from the revisional order.

An earlier Board decision did not finally settle the legal issue, because finality on a question of law requires determination by a court of competent final authority. Where a revisional order itself gives rise to a question of law under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the existence of a prior Board view does not make the controversy academic or justify refusal to state a case. The refusal to make a reference was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was sent back for a consolidated reference on the stated legal question.

---

---

Issues: Whether a question of law arose from the Board's revisional order so as to justify a reference under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and whether an earlier order of the Board could itself conclude the matter and justify refusal to refer.

Analysis: A question of law is not finally settled merely because the Board has taken a view in an earlier matter. Finality on a legal issue requires a decision by a court of competent final authority, such as the High Court or the Supreme Court. The existence of an earlier Board decision, therefore, did not make the present controversy academic or eliminate the duty to state a case where a legal question arose from the revisional order.

Conclusion: The refusal to make a reference was unsustainable, and the Board was required to state the case and refer the question of law.

Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed and the matter was sent back for a consolidated reference on the stated question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: An issue of law is not finally concluded by an earlier decision of the Board alone, and where such a question arises from the order under challenge, the authority must state a case for reference.

---