Conflicting Tribunal views on capital goods credit under Rule 57Q and Rule 57S can raise a referable question of law.

Conflicting Tribunal views on the scope of capital goods credit under Rule 57Q and the role of Rule 57S were treated as sufficient to raise a question of law for reference to the High Court. Earlier decisions had viewed Rule 57S as procedural and Rule 57Q as the substantive provision governing eligibility for capital goods credit. The matter was examined only to see whether the divergence justified a reference, not to decide entitlement on merits. A referable question of law was therefore found and the reference application succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether a question of law arose from the conflicting Tribunal views on the scope of capital goods credit under Rule 57Q and the extent to which Rule 57S could be relied upon, so as to justify reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The application arose from a prior Tribunal order that had taken a view different from earlier decisions on the relationship between Rule 57Q and Rule 57S. Earlier orders had treated Rule 57S as procedural and Rule 57Q as the substantive provision governing eligibility of capital goods credit. The existence of a conflicting view on the same legal issue was held to be sufficient to raise a question of law. The order under reference was therefore examined only to determine whether such divergence justified a reference, not to decide the underlying entitlement to credit on merits.

Conclusion: A question of law was held to arise and the reference application succeeded, with the question referred to the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A conflict between Tribunal decisions on the same legal issue can itself give rise to a referable question of law.

---