Referability of a legal question remains intact despite an earlier adverse High Court view when apex court law governs the issue.

A question on the nature of registration fee paid for increasing authorised capital remained referable as a question of law, and an earlier High Court view against the Revenue did not by itself justify refusal to state the case. The apex court's declaration of law governed the issue, so the Tribunal could not decline reference merely because a similar issue had been decided adversely earlier. The question was therefore held referable, and the Tribunal was directed to make the reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question relating to the nature of the registration fee paid for increasing the authorised capital was a referable question of law and whether the reference application could be rejected merely because an earlier decision had taken a view against the Revenue.

Analysis: A question does not cease to be referable merely because an earlier decision of the same court has considered a similar issue against one party. The declaration of law by the apex court governed the matter and made clear that the existence of an adverse prior view does not by itself justify refusal to refer the question. The Tribunal's reliance on the earlier High Court decision did not prevent the question from being referred for decision.

Conclusion: The question was held to be referable and the Tribunal was directed to make the reference.

---