K. Mitra S. L. Chibber, with him for the respondent.
Appeal from an order of the High Court of Patna dated 9th September, 1948, Agarwala C.J. and Meredith J. in J.C. No.
November 30.
P. Sinha S.C. Sinha, with him for the appellant.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant thereafter made an application to the High Court for requiring the Board of Revenue to state a case, but this application was summarily rejected.
61 of 1950.
He then filed a peti tion for revision to the Board of Revenue, against the order of the Commissioner, but it was dismissed on the 28th May, 1947.
In pursuance of this provision, the appellant filed an applica tion for registration on the 19th December, 1944, and a certificate of registration was issued to him on the 21st December, 1944.
The judgment of the Court was deliv ered by FAzL ALl J. FAZL ALI J. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated the 9th September, 1948, declining to call upon the board of Revenue to state a case under section 21 3 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 Act VI of 1944 , with reference to an assessment made under that Act.
He thereupon moved the Board of Revenue to refer to the High Court certain questions of law arising out of is order of the 28th May, but Mr. N. Baksi, a Member of the Board, by his order of the 4th December, 1947, rejected the petition with the following observations No case for review of my predecessors order made out.
The appellant appealed to the Commissioner against the assessment and the penalty levied upon him, but his appeal was dismissed on the 6th June, 1946.
He then applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which the High Court granted, following the decision of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Feroze Shah Kaka Khd v. Income tax Commissioner, punjab and N.W.F.P., Lahore The High Court pointed out in the order granting leave that in the appeal that was taken to the Privy Council in the Lahore case, an objection had been raised as to the companypetency of the appeal, but the Privy Council, while dismissing the appeal on the merits, had made the following observation The objection is a serious one.
The Board then reheard the matter and rejected the application of the appellant and refused to state a case and refer it to the High Court.
Dealing with this application, the High Court pointed out that the Member of the Board had number been asked to review his predecessors order but only to state a case, and gave the following directions The ease must, therefore, go back to the Board of Revenue for a case to be stated or for a proper ,order rejecting the application to be passed.
5 of 1948.
31 of the Letters Patent of that High Court that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Federal Court.
71 of 1948 on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court under cl.
Admittedly such an appeal as the present is number authorized by the Income tax Act itself.
