Summary
The Court returned a reference to a Division Bench because the referred question about compulsory duty payment under Rule 96-ZP(3) did not arise on the facts and was not disputed by the assessee. The actual challenge concerned Rule 5’s statutory and constitutional validity. Those questions, and other issues in tagged matters apart from the extraneous referred issue, remained for the Division Bench to decide.
Issues
- Whether the referred question concerning Rule 96-ZP(3) arose in the assessee’s challenge to Rule 5.
Held
- The assessee challenged Rule 5 as beyond Section 3A and discriminatory, rather than disputing the obligation described in the referred question concerning Rule 96-ZP(3). The reference therefore did not arise on the facts. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
- The matter was returned for decision of the actual questions identified in paragraph 20 of the earlier judgment. Other issues in tagged matters, excluding the question identified in paragraph 51 of that judgment, could also be decided by the Division Bench. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Reference answered by holding that the referred question did not arise. Appeals and tagged matters directed to be placed before a Division Bench for decision of the actual challenge and remaining issues; validity of Rule 5 not decided.