Reference jurisdiction requires a question of law arising from the Tribunal's actual order, not an issue not decided.

A reference under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act can be answered only on a question of law that actually arises from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's finding on interest liability rested on the interpretation of section 27 read with sections 21, 23, 24 and 25, while the earlier passing reference to rule 23A and section 2(o) was not the basis of the operative decision. An issue consciously not decided by the Tribunal could not be treated as properly referred for opinion, so the referred questions were outside the scope of the Tribunal's order and could not be answered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions referred by the Tribunal arose from its order and whether the High Court should answer the reference.

Analysis: The Tribunal's decision on interest liability was founded on the interpretation of section 27 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 read with sections 21, 23, 24 and 25 of the Act. The passing reference to rule 23A and section 2(o) in the earlier Tribunal decision was not the basis of the operative finding. A reference under section 45(1) can be answered only on a question of law that actually arises from the Tribunal's order, and the court declined to treat an issue consciously not decided by the Tribunal as one properly referred for opinion.

Conclusion: The questions referred did not arise from the Tribunal's order and the reference could not be answered.

---