Statutory duty to state a case can be enforced where a serious tax law question arises on capital employed.

A statutory duty to state a case for reference may be enforced by the High Court even where the matter concerns revenue, because an order compelling performance of that duty is not an exercise of original revenue jurisdiction. Where taxing provisions require a reference on a non-frivolous question of law, the revenue authority must refer the matter if a serious legal issue arises. The treatment of invested funds, securities, or deposits as capital employed in the business was treated as a question involving statutory construction and legal principle, not a pure question of fact, so a reference was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could compel a revenue to perform a statutory duty to state a case for reference notwithstanding the revenue-jurisdiction exclusion. (ii) Whether, under the relevant taxing provisions, the Chief Revenue Authority was bound to state a case where a serious question of law arose on the treatment of invested funds as capital employed in the business.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could compel a revenue officer to perform a statutory duty to state a case for reference notwithstanding the revenue-jurisdiction exclusion.

Analysis: A statutory power conferred on a public officer may, in appropriate circumstances, carry with it a corresponding duty. An order directing a revenue officer to discharge a statutory obligation is not the exercise of original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue within the meaning of the exclusion clause. The proceeding concerned not the collection of revenue but the preliminary statutory process for determining the amount assessable.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to compel performance of the statutory duty.

Issue (ii): Whether, under the relevant taxing provisions, the Chief Revenue Authority was bound to state a case where a serious question of law arose on the treatment of invested funds as capital employed in the business.

Analysis: The provisions governing references required the authority to refer a question of law unless the application was frivolous or a reference unnecessary. The issue whether funds invested in securities or kept as deposits formed part of capital employed in the business was not a pure question of fact; it involved construction of the taxing statute and a legal distinction between capital employed in the business and funds merely held in investment form. The authority had treated the matter as one of principle and law, so a reference was required.

Conclusion: The Chief Revenue Authority was bound to state a case, and the refusal to refer was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the rule should have been made absolute in the appellants' favour, and costs followed the result.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes reference to the High Court mandatory on a non-frivolous legal question, the revenue authority must state a case when a serious question of law arises; an order compelling that duty is not barred merely because the subject matter relates to revenue.

---