https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158998 Interpretation of section 36(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 gave rise to a referable question of law because no binding Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court precedent was shown to settle the provision's scope. The Punjab High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to refuse reference merely because the issues were overlapping, and directed that a single comprehensive question be referred for judicial determination. The effect was to secure adjudication on the legality of the penalty issue under section 36(6), rather than leaving the statutory interpretation unresolved at the Tribunal level. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158998 Interpretation of section 36(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 gave rise to a referable question of law because no binding Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court precedent was shown to settle the provision's scope. The Punjab High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to refuse reference merely because the issues were overlapping, and directed that a single comprehensive question be referred for judicial determination. The effect was to secure adjudication on the legality of the penalty issue under section 36(6), rather than leaving the statutory interpretation unresolved at the Tribunal level. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158998