- (1.) ON this reference application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, notice was issued to the respondent to show-cause as to why the Tribunal should not be directed to refer the following question for our opinion: "Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the counter sales to foreign buyers/tourists are eligible for exemption under s. 80HHC despite retrospective amendment of the Act by insertion of Explanation (aa) to s. 80HHC(4A) w.e.f. 1st April, 1986?"
(2.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above question sought to be referred by the petitioner, is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of ITO vs. Vaibhav Textiles (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 593 : (2002) 258 ITR 346 (Raj). Counsel further submits that the apex Court has also considered this issue in the case of CIT vs. Silver & Arts Palace (Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2000) [reported at (2003) 180 CTR (SC) 309--Ed.], and their Lordships have also taken the same view as that of this Court. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel for the Department. In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out to direct the Tribunal to refer the abovementioned question for our opinion. Consequently, the application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, is rejected.;