Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's refusal to state a case was justified when its finding was based on a single circumstance and it ignored other relevant matters, and whether such a finding disclosed a question of law.
Analysis: The statutory reference scheme under section 66 confined the High Court to questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order, while findings of fact based on evidence would ordinarily not be disturbed. However, a question of law may arise where the Tribunal misdirects itself in law or bases its conclusion on incomplete consideration of the material before it. A finding cannot be treated as immune from reference jurisdiction if it rests on one circumstance assumed to be true while ignoring other essential facts bearing on the issue.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had misdirected itself in law, and the High Court erred in refusing to require a statement of the case; the finding gave rise to a question of law in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the High Court for decision according to law, with costs to abide the result there.
Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact gives rise to a question of law where the Tribunal bases its conclusion on incomplete material or ignores essential matters, thereby committing a legal misdirection in the exercise of reference jurisdiction.