Substantial question of law must arise from the Tribunal's findings before a High Court will answer it.

A substantial question of law will not be answered if it does not arise from the Tribunal's actual findings. The Bombay High Court found that the Tribunal had treated the dispute as one of factual and evidentiary foundation, including opportunity to the alleged dummy unit and proof of the departmental case on merits, rather than adopting any general rule that notice to a sole proprietor was legally insufficient. As the framed question did not emerge from the impugned reasoning, the Court left it open for consideration in an appropriate future case and disposed of the appeal without determining the merits of that issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the substantial question of law framed in the appeal arose from the Tribunal's findings and, if not, whether the Court should answer it.

Analysis: The appeal proceeded on a challenge to the Tribunal's view that a separate notice ought to have been issued to a purported dummy unit. On a close reading of the Tribunal's order, the Court found that the Tribunal had not proceeded on any general proposition that a notice to a sole proprietor was legally insufficient. Instead, the Tribunal had treated the issue as one of the factual and evidentiary foundation of the case, including whether the alleged dummy unit had been given an opportunity and whether the departmental case was proved on merits. The Court further found that the framed question did not arise from the Tribunal's actual reasoning and could not be answered in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The framed substantial question of law was not answered and was kept open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of without any determination on the merits of the question framed, and the legal issue was left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not answer a substantial question of law that does not arise from the impugned order's actual findings; such a question may be left open for decision in a proper case.

---