Statutory limitation and referable question of law: reference applications failed where review directions could not extend time and no legal issue arose.

A statutory limitation period for reference applications cannot be enlarged by a concession or direction made in review proceedings, and the general power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not available in the manner sought for proceedings under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The High Court also found that the proposed questions did not raise substantial questions of law because they attempted to reopen concurrent findings of fact and to secure reappreciation of evidence. Allegations of perversity and non-consideration of evidence were treated as mixed questions of fact and law, not independent referable questions of law. The reference applications were therefore rejected as time-barred and unsupported by any referable legal issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reference applications could be entertained despite the statutory period of limitation and the order passed in review proceedings. (ii) Whether the questions proposed for reference were substantial questions of law warranting reference to the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the reference applications could be entertained despite the statutory period of limitation and the order passed in review proceedings.

Analysis: The applications were filed beyond the prescribed time. A concession or direction in review proceedings could not override a statutory limitation period. The court had no inherent power to enlarge or waive limitation contrary to the clear mandate of the statute, and the general power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not available for proceedings under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in the manner sought.

Conclusion: The applications were not entertainable on limitation and the review order did not assist the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the questions proposed for reference were substantial questions of law warranting reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The questions raised were found to be attempts to reopen concurrent factual findings and to secure re-appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal had already considered the material and applied the correct legal principles. The grievances of perversity and non-consideration of evidence were held to be mixed questions of fact and law, not independent questions of law. No debatable legal issue requiring the High Court's opinion was shown.

Conclusion: The proposed questions did not constitute questions of law fit for reference.

Final Conclusion: The reference applications were rejected because they were barred by limitation and because no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory period of limitation cannot be enlarged by judicial concession, and a reference will not lie where the proposed questions merely seek re-appreciation of evidence or reopening of concurrent findings of fact without raising a genuine question of law.

---