https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293002 A writ of mandamus does not lie to compel a reference where the Commissioner treats a revision application as belated and declines discretionary relief. Although the revision under Section 33 was not subject to an express limitation period, the Court accepted that lateness could still justify refusal as a matter of discretion, and it would not review that assessment in mandamus proceedings. A reference under Section 66(2) was confined to a question of law arising from the order itself; on the facts, the refusal to act did not disclose a referable legal question. The petition therefore failed because the matter was discretionary and non-referable. en-us Wed, 08 May 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:56:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293002 A writ of mandamus does not lie to compel a reference where the Commissioner treats a revision application as belated and declines discretionary relief. Although the revision under Section 33 was not subject to an express limitation period, the Court accepted that lateness could still justify refusal as a matter of discretion, and it would not review that assessment in mandamus proceedings. A reference under Section 66(2) was confined to a question of law arising from the order itself; on the facts, the refusal to act did not disclose a referable legal question. The petition therefore failed because the matter was discretionary and non-referable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 May 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293002