Reference to court refused where revisional assessment raised mixed issues and no prejudice from record production was shown.

Questions proposed on the applicability of Rule 54 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and on challenge to a revisional assessment order were held not to disclose pure questions of law fit for reference. The revisional order was based on assessment records already before the Assessing Authority, and the dealer had opportunities to contest the revision. The cited precedent was found inapplicable because it concerned documents the dealer was not obliged to preserve. As no adverse inference was drawn from non-production of records and no prejudice from the revisional process was shown, the remaining issues were treated as mixed questions or matters of correctness, not referable legal questions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed questions regarding the applicability of Rule 54 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and the challenge to the revisional assessment order raised questions of law requiring reference to the Court.

Analysis: The revisional order had been made on the basis of the assessment records already available before the Assessing Authority, and the dealer was given opportunities to contest the proposed revision. The reliance on Rule 54 and the cited precedent was held to be misplaced because that decision concerned a different controversy involving documents which the dealer was not obliged to preserve. Here, no adverse inference was drawn from non-production of records, and no prejudice was shown to have been caused by the revisional process. The remaining questions were treated as turning on the correctness of the revisional exercise and other mixed issues rather than pure questions of law.

Conclusion: The proposed questions were not fit for reference and the application was rejected.

---