1975 (12) TMI 148 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 34(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 regarding the High Court's advisory jurisdiction in deciding questions of law raised by the Tribunal.
- Consideration of whether the High Court should decide questions of law referred to it when the party who initiated the reference is absent and shows no interest in the proceedings.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, initiated by the assessees. The Court, in its order, highlighted the provision of sub-section (5) of section 34, which mandates the High Court to decide questions of law raised by the Tribunal and deliver a judgment containing the grounds for its decision. However, the Court noted that its jurisdiction under section 34 is advisory in nature. Despite the initial impression that the High Court should answer questions of law referred to it, the Court emphasized that it is not obligatory to decide such questions academically if the party initiating the reference shows no interest in the proceedings.

In this specific case, the assessees who instigated the reference were absent during the hearing and did not present any arguments challenging the Tribunal's decision. This lack of participation indicated a lack of interest on the part of the assessees in obtaining a decision from the Court. Consequently, the Court questioned the necessity of expending public time and resources on deciding a question when the party concerned is disinterested. Drawing on precedents from various High Courts concerning similar provisions in other tax statutes, the Bombay High Court justified its decision not to answer the question referred to it in this case.

The Court cited instances where other High Courts, such as the Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court, Travancore-Cochin High Court, and Andhra Pradesh High Court, declined to answer questions of law in references initiated by absent parties under different tax laws. By referencing these decisions, the Bombay High Court reinforced its stance on declining to answer the question raised in the present reference. Consequently, the Court decided not to address the question and returned the reference to the Sales Tax Tribunal. Additionally, the Court directed the applicants to bear the costs of the reference, fixed at Rs. 150, and appropriated the fee deposited by the applicants towards the awarded costs to the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the discretionary nature of the High Court's advisory jurisdiction under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of party participation and interest in the legal proceedings to warrant a decision on questions of law referred to the Court.