Reference jurisdiction requires prosecution by the referring party; absent assessee meant no obligation to answer the referred questions.

The reference jurisdiction under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was treated as comparable to section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and dependent on a hearing of the case. Because the assessee, at whose instance the reference had been made, failed to appear and did not prosecute the matter, the preliminary condition for deciding the referred questions was not satisfied. The High Court was therefore not compelled to answer the reference and declined to do so.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was bound to answer the reference when the assessee, at whose instance the reference was made, remained absent and did not prosecute the matter.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to answer a reference under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 is comparable to the reference jurisdiction contemplated by section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The exercise of that jurisdiction presupposes a hearing of the case. Where the party who invoked the reference does not appear and fails to pursue the matter, the preliminary condition for deciding the referred questions is not satisfied. In such a situation, the Court is not compelled to answer the reference.

Conclusion: The Court was not bound to answer the referred questions and declined to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference jurisdiction that requires the hearing of a case does not compel the Court to answer the referred questions when the party at whose instance the reference was made fails to appear and prosecute the reference.

---