Statutory right of appeal requires express authority; refusal to direct an income-tax reference was not appealable to Council.

An appeal to His Majesty in Council could arise only from an express statutory grant, and the High Court's refusal to require the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case under section 66(3) was not a judgment, decree or final order within clause 31 of the Letters Patent. The jurisdiction under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was merely advisory, and the statutory appeal under section 66-A applied only to judgments delivered on a reference, not to a refusal to direct a reference. The application for leave to appeal was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council lay under clause 31 of the Letters Patent against an order of the High Court refusing to require the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The right of appeal must be conferred by express enactment and cannot be implied. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was advisory only, and the order refusing to require a reference was not a judgment, decree, or final order within the meaning of clause 31 of the Letters Patent. The statutory appeal provided by section 66-A applied only to judgments delivered on a reference under section 66 and had no application where the High Court merely declined to direct the Commissioner to state a case. The order therefore remained outside the scope of any appeal as of right to His Majesty in Council.

Conclusion: The application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---