No estoppel against statute bars a later reference on interpretation of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act.

A prior refusal or omission to press a reference did not bar a later application for reference, because there is no estoppel against statute and res judicata does not prevent a party from seeking reference of a legal question in a subsequent matter. The issue whether section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 applied required interpretation of the governing provision and was not a pure question of fact. The objection based on estoppel therefore failed, and the Tribunal was required to state the question of law for the High Court's opinion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's application for reference was barred by estoppel or res judicata because a similar application in another case had been rejected, and whether the question sought to be referred involved an interpretable question of law under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.

Analysis: The refusal of reference in an earlier matter did not create any bar against the statute. A party is not precluded by res judicata or estoppel from seeking reference of a legal question in a subsequent matter, and the fact that no reference had been pressed earlier did not prevent the Revenue from moving the Tribunal in the present case. The dispute was not a pure question of fact, since it required interpretation and application of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, which had not been finally adjudicated by the jurisdictional court.

Conclusion: The objection based on estoppel failed, and the Tribunal ought to have referred the question of law.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's request for reference was accepted, and the Tribunal was directed to state the question for the High Court's opinion.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no estoppel against statute, and a prior refusal or omission to seek reference in another matter does not bar a subsequent application for reference of a legal question that requires interpretation of the governing provision.

---