Referable question of law denied where Tribunal's ownership and possession findings were treated as pure fact

A reference under tax appellate law was refused because the first and second proposed questions were based on factual and legal submissions that had not been urged before the Tribunal and therefore did not arise from its appellate order. The remaining proposed questions also failed because the Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner owned the contraband and was concerned with acquiring, keeping, concealing and dealing with it was based on appreciation of evidence and constituted a pure finding of fact. No referable question of law emerged, so no direction for reference could be issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed for reference arose out of the Tribunal's order, and whether the Tribunal's finding on ownership and possession of the seized goods gave rise to any question of law.

Analysis: The Court held that the first and second proposed questions could not be entertained because the factual and legal submissions on which they were founded had not been urged before the Tribunal and, therefore, did not arise out of its appellate order. As to the remaining questions, the Tribunal had reached its conclusion on the basis of appreciation of the evidence and had found that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband and was concerned with acquiring, keeping, concealing, and dealing with it. Such a determination was treated as a pure finding of fact, and no referable question of law emerged from it.

Conclusion: No direction for reference could be issued, and the petitions were dismissed.

---