The conditions and qualifications annexed to the grant of special jurisdiction must be strictly complied with and it is not competent to a tribunal to dispense with what the Legislature has made the essential conditions of that jurisdiction.

1. In this case the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court under Sec.25 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947:

"(1) Whether the assessee is entitled upon the facts and circumstances of the case, to a deduction of 30 per cent, over gross turnover under Rule 16 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules with respect to articles supplied to several contractors when the assessee himself as not a contractor executing a contract within the meaning of Sec.2 (b) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 ? and

(2) Whether the assessee is entitled upon the facts and circumstances of the case, to a deduction of Rs. 1,20,492-11-0 on account of sales transacted between the period 1st of July, 1947, to 30th September, 1948, in execution of contracts entered into prior to 1st of July, 1947, but not prior to lst of October, 1944, having regard to the amendment made by Act VI of 1949?"

On behalf of the opposite party, Messrs. Arthur Butler & Co. Limited, a preliminary objection is raised on the ground that the reference is incompetent it was submitted that the State of, Bihar made an application in revision to the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner under Sec.24 (4). That application was dismissed by the Board of Revenue and thereupon the State of Bihar applied under Sec.25 to the Board of Revenue requiring it to refer to High Court the two questions of law stated above.

The Board of Revenue refused the application holding that no question of law arose in the case. It should be noticed that this application under Sec.25 (1) was signed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax although the State of Bihar is described as the petitioner in the body of the application. Against the order of refusal the State of Bihar made an application to the High Court under Section 25 (2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The application was heard ex parte by the High Court, and on the 26th of July, 1954, a Division Bench of this High Court ordered the Board of Revenue to state a case and make a reference on the two questions of law.

The point taken by Mr. Untwalia is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to call for a reference under Sec.25 (3) because the application under Section 25 (2) was made not by the Commissioner of Sales Tax but on behalf of the State of Bihar. The submission put forward by Mr. Untwalia is that only the dealer or the Commissioner is competent to make an application to the Board of Revenue under Sec.25 (1), and in case the Board refused to make a reference only the dealer or the Commissioner may apply to the High Court against such refusal. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner of Sales Tax did not make an application to the High Court under Sec.25 (2) in this case arid, therefore, the reference made by the Board of Revenue is incompetent and the High Court is not bound to answer the questions of law upon which the Board of Revenue has stated a case. In our opinion the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Untwalia is well-founded and must prevail. It is, necessary in this connection to quote the language of Sec.25: "Statement of case to High Court -- (1) Within ninety days from the passing by the Board of Revenue of any order under Sub-section (4) of Sec.24 affecting any liability of any dealer to pay tax under this Act, such dealer or the Commissioner may, by application in writing together with a fee of one hundred rupees, where such application is made by a dealer, require the Board to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order;

(2) If, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Board of Revenue refuses to make such reference, the applicant may, within forty-five days of such refusal, either -- (a) withdraw his application and if the applicant who does so, is a dealer, the fee paid by him shall be refunded, or

(b) apply to the High Court against such refusal.

(3) If upon the receipt of an application under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2), the High Court is not satisf