Adjournment discretion and Commissioner appeal maintainability under amended tax law were referred as substantial questions of law.

Refusal to adjourn a fiscal appeal and disposal ex parte can raise a substantial question of law because adjournment discretion must be exercised soundly, not arbitrarily or capriciously; the Tribunal's handling of the applicant's adjournment request was therefore referred for opinion. The maintainability and limitation of a Commissioner's appeal under the amended State Act also raised a substantial question of law, as the amended scheme allowed appeals against specified erroneous and revenue-prejudicial orders; that issue too was referred for opinion. The reference applications were allowed in part and the Tribunal was directed to state the case on both reformulated questions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and in deciding it in the absence of the applicant. (ii) Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner under the amended provisions of law was tenable in law and within limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and in deciding it in the absence of the applicant.

Analysis: Adjournment is a matter of discretion, but the discretion must be exercised soundly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. In fiscal matters, where serious consequences follow, the propriety of refusing adjournment requires scrutiny, especially when a request for adjournment is placed before the Tribunal and the appeal is heard ex parte.

Conclusion: The question of whether the refusal of adjournment was justified was treated as a substantial question of law fit to be referred for opinion.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner under the amended provisions of law was tenable in law and within limitation.

Analysis: The amended provisions of the State Act conferred a right of appeal on the Commissioner against specified orders if they were erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The tenability of the Commissioner's appeal and the question of limitation arose directly from the amended statutory scheme and from the objections raised by the applicant.

Conclusion: The question of the maintainability and limitation of the Commissioner's appeal was also treated as a substantial question of law fit to be referred for opinion.

Final Conclusion: The reference applications were allowed in part and the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the two reformulated questions of law.

---