Statutory meaning of "issued" required fresh reference, as the earlier ruling did not finally conclude the legal question.

The High Court erred in refusing a reference on the assumption that the validity of notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was already concluded by an earlier decision. The Supreme Court noted that the question referred from the Tribunal was not covered in the manner assumed and that the meaning of "issued" in section 297(2)(d)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depends on its statutory context. As the question of law arose directly from the Tribunal's order, it could not be treated as finally settled merely by the earlier case. A reference was therefore required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was right in refusing to direct a reference on the ground that the question regarding the validity of notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, stood concluded by an earlier decision, and whether the meaning of the word "issued" in section 297(2)(d)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, required reconsideration.

Analysis: The question referred to the Tribunal was not covered by the earlier decision in the manner assumed by the Tribunal and the High Court. The meaning of "issued" had to be understood in its statutory context, and a subsequent decision had explained that the expression may vary with the setting in which it occurs. Since the present question of law arose directly from the Tribunal's order, it could not be treated as finally concluded merely by reference to the earlier case.

Conclusion: The refusal to make a reference was erroneous. The question of law was required to be referred for decision.

---