Reference question amendment permitted where revised wording preserved the same legal controversy arising from the Tribunal's order.

In reference proceedings under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, the High Court may permit amendment of a proposed question so long as it continues to reflect the same legal controversy arising from the Tribunal's order. Exact identity of wording with the original draft is not required if the redrafted question correctly states the issue already raised before the Tribunal. The amendment was permissible because it captured the real dispute over whether the goods fell within entry No. 12(iv) of Schedule II, Part A or the residuary entry. The Court did not decide the classification issue itself and directed reference of the amended question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the High Court can permit amendment of the proposed reference question so as to bring out the real legal controversy arising from the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The question to be referred under section 69(2) must arise from the Tribunal's order and relate to the same legal controversy that was raised before the Tribunal under section 69(1). However, the proposed question need not be in identical language to the question originally framed, so long as it correctly captures the controversy decided by the Tribunal. Since the amended draft question in the present matter reflected the real dispute whether the goods fell within entry No. 12(iv) of Schedule II, Part A or within the residuary entry, the amendment was held to be permissible. The Court was only considering whether a question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, not deciding the substantive classification issue itself.

Conclusion: The draft amendment was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to refer the amended question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In reference proceedings, a proposed question may be redrafted to accurately state the same legal controversy arising from the Tribunal's order, and exact identity of language is not required if the substantive issue remains the same.

---