Reference of questions of law must arise from a tribunal's final order, not from interlocutory orders, so such references are invalid.

An application to refer questions of law must arise from the Tribunal's final order after hearing both parties; interlocutory orders made while an appeal remains pending and seeking further report or enquiry do not qualify as orders giving rise to a reference. Consequently, permitting references from interlocutory rulings would frustrate the legislative policy favouring finality. Because the reference application related only to the Tribunal's interlocutory order dated 15 December 1955 and the final disposal occurred later, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to state a case on that interlocutory order and the reference could not be validly entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 66(1) for reference of questions of law was maintainable in respect of the Appellate Tribunal's interlocutory order dated 15 December 1955, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to state a case to the High Court on that basis.

Analysis: Section 66(1) permits reference of questions of law arising out of an order passed under section 33(4). Section 33(4) contemplates the Tribunal's final order on an appeal (the order passed after hearing both parties). Interlocutory orders passed while keeping an appeal pending and seeking further report or enquiry are not orders under section 33(4). A reference under section 66(1) must arise out of the final order contemplated by section 33(4); permitting references from interlocutory orders would enable appeals or references against interlocutory rulings, contrary to the legislative policy favouring finality. In the present case the application for reference was made when only the interlocutory order of 15 December 1955 existed; the final order disposing of the appeal was passed later on 24 January 1957. The question about the competency of the appeal was not raised before the Tribunal at the time of the interlocutory order. Consequently the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to state a case under section 66(1) in respect of the interlocutory order of 15 December 1955, and the reference could not validly be entertained.

Conclusion: Application under section 66(1) in respect of the interlocutory order dated 15 December 1955 was not maintainable; the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to state the case and the reference is returned unanswered in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

---