https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159037 The Tribunal's refusal to refer the State's proposed questions was partly incorrect because its view on the validity of the assessment order and the Commissioner's power under section 40 gave rise to a referable question of law under section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The Court directed a reference on that issue and required the Tribunal to state the case accordingly. However, the broader questions concerning export exemption and the effect of rule 29(v) read with section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were not decided by the Tribunal on merits and therefore did not arise from the impugned order. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:19:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159037 The Tribunal's refusal to refer the State's proposed questions was partly incorrect because its view on the validity of the assessment order and the Commissioner's power under section 40 gave rise to a referable question of law under section 42(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The Court directed a reference on that issue and required the Tribunal to state the case accordingly. However, the broader questions concerning export exemption and the effect of rule 29(v) read with section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were not decided by the Tribunal on merits and therefore did not arise from the impugned order. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159037