(Tax Case No.44/2025) 2025:CGHC:12946-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 44 of 2025 M/s NU Vista Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Emami Cement Ltd.) having its Office and Work at Village Risda, Suhela Road, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh- 493332 ... Applicant versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. Order on Board (18/03/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The applicant has preferred this tax case under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) requiring the Board/Tribunal to make a reference on a question of law, as the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, under Section 55(1) of the Act, has declined to refer to this Court finding that no question of law arising from the order in question, is involved. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.03.22 14:53:20 +0530 (Tax Case No.44/2025) 2. The applicant claimed entry tax exemption and his case was considered by the State Level Committee (SLC), which is still pending consideration. Meanwhile, on 18-1-2021, assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer levying entry tax liability of 6,26,18,491/- in ₹ absence of the Entry Tax Exemption Eligibility Certificate against which the applicant preferred appeal and the appeal was rejected on 22-12- 2022 by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and against which the applicant preferred appeal before the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal which has also been dismissed on 24-5-2024 upholding the assessment order which was finally communicated to the applicant on 31-5-2024. The applicant then filed reference under Section 55(1) of the Act before the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal on 29-7-2024 which was also rejected by the Tribunal on 25-10-2024 finding that no question of law is involved out of the order dated 24-5-2024. Thereafter, the applicant invoked Section 55(2) of the Act by filing the instant tax case. 3. Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that question of law ought to have been referred by the Tribunal, and as such, it involves the substantial question of law for consideration, as the applicant’s application for entry tax exemption was considered by the SLC, but it has not been decided till date, therefore, it involves substantial question of law and the Tribunal be called upon to exercise the power under Section 55(1) of the Act. (Tax Case No.44/2025) 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the non-applicant / State, would submit that no question of law would arise for consideration out of the order dated 24-5-2024 and as such, the Tribunal has rightly declined jurisdiction under Section 55(1) of the Act, therefore, the present tax case deserves to be rejected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 55 of the Act, which states as under: - “55. (1) With in sixty days from the date of communication by the Board of any order to as dealer or to the commissioner under section 48 or section 49 or section 56 the dealer or the commissioner may, by application in writing accompanied, where the application is made by a dealer by a fee of one hundred rupees, require the Board to refer to High Court any question of law arising out of such order and where the Board decides to make a reference to the High Court, it shall draw up statement of the case and refer it accordingly. (2) If for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Board refuses to make a reference, the applicant may within sixty days from the date of communication of such refusal- (a) withdraw his application and if he does so, the fee paid shall be refunded, or (b) apply to the High Court to require the Board to make a reference. (3) If upon the receipt of an application under clause (b) of sub- section (2) the High Court is satisfied that the refusal was not justified, it may require the Board to state case and refer it, and on receipt of such requisition, the Board shall act accordingly. (4) If the High Court is satisfied that the case stated is not sufficient to enable it to determine the question of law raised, it may call upon the Board to make such additions of alterations as the Court may direct in that behalf. Page 4 of 5 (Tax Case No.44/2025) (5) The High Court upon the hearing of a reference under this section shall decide the question of law raised therein and shall deliver judgment thereon containing the grounds of decision and shall send to the Board a copy of the judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar, and the Board shall dispose of the case accordingly. (6) to (9) xxx xxx xxx” 7. A careful perusal of Section 55(1) of the Act would show that power of the Board (in this case, the Tribunal) to make reference to the High Court must arise from the subject order, in this case, the order of the Tribunal / Board is dated 24-5-2024. 8. Reference jurisdiction is consultative / advisory jurisdiction of the High Court which he renders on opinion being asked and it is purely advisory in nature. The High Court in the reference jurisdiction is to extend its advise in its jurisdiction which is advisory in nature and purely consultative in nature to enable the referring Tribunal to dispose of the matter, as the case may be, on the basis of opinion given by the High Court. The law in this regard is very well settled. 9. Under Section 55(1) of the Act, the Tribunal will make reference only when the question of law is involved and question of law for which authoritative pronouncement of this Court is required. 10. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that against the order levying entry tax liability, the applicant preferred appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed on 24-5-2024 and the applicant again preferred reference application under Section 55(1) of the Act, which has (Tax Case No.44/2025) been rejected by the Tribunal holding that no question of law is involved arising out of the order in question. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is quite vivid that the applicant’s case is that its substantive application for grant of entry tax exemption and grant of Entry Tax Exemption Eligibility Certificate is pending consideration before the State Level Committee, which has not been decided till now and as such, the matter is pending before the SLC. We do not find any question of law involved in the present case requiring the Board/Tribunal to make a reference and accordingly, we decline to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 55(2) of the Act calling upon the Tribunal to make reference to this Court. In that view of the matter, the present tax case is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). However, this will not bar the State Level Committee to take decision on the applicant’s application, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Soma