No statable question of law arose where depreciation on artificial silk machinery had already been decided for the assessee.

Depreciation at 15% on machinery used for manufacturing artificial silk was upheld on the basis of evidence that the assessee carried on that manufacturing activity. Because the same legal issue had already been decided by the same HC in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, the proposed reference question was not a fresh or debatable question of law. No statable question of law arose under section 256(2), so the application seeking a direction to state a case was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether any statable question of law arose for directing a reference under section 256(2) in relation to the depreciation rate allowed on machinery used for manufacturing artificial silk.

Analysis: The assessee's claim for depreciation at 15 per cent. had been accepted by the appellate authorities on the basis of evidence showing that the business was manufacturing artificial silk. The controversy was identical to an earlier decision of the same court in which the same legal question had already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In that situation, the proposed question was not a fresh or debatable question requiring reference.

Conclusion: No statable question of law arose, and the application for direction to state a case was not maintainable.

---