Referable questions of law depend on a statutory issue arising from the order and not on factual or academic disputes.

A question is referable where it presents a substantive question of law arising from the order, especially if there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the statutory scope. On that basis, the limitation issue under Section 40(2) and the connected operation of Rule 40 and Rule 10 were treated as referable, along with related questions flowing from the same controversy. By contrast, questions turning on appreciation of evidence, factual existence of illicit transport or receipt, private accounts, or matters not directly arising from the Tribunal's order were held non-referable. The document distinguishes legal issues suitable for reference from factual or academic questions that cannot be referred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the questions relating to limitation under Section 40(2) and the operation of Rule 40, Rule 10 and allied provisions raised a referable question of law warranting reference to the Supreme Court; (ii) Whether the remaining questions, being factual, academic, or not arising from the Tribunal's order, were non-referable.

Issue (i): Whether the questions relating to limitation under Section 40(2) and the operation of Rule 40, Rule 10 and allied provisions raised a referable question of law warranting reference to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The order noted a divergence of judicial opinion on the scope of the expression "other legal proceedings" in Section 40(2), with one High Court taking the view that it covered only court proceedings and another holding that it extended to departmental proceedings. That conflict made the limitation question a proper question of law for reference. The connected questions concerning the effect of receipt of tobacco without a valid permit, the applicability of Rule 40, and the interrelation with Rule 10 were treated as questions flowing from the same controversy and were also referred in a modified form.

Conclusion: The questions falling within this core controversy were held referable and were referred to the Supreme Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining questions, being factual, academic, or not arising from the Tribunal's order, were non-referable.

Analysis: Questions turning on appreciation of evidence, the factual existence of illicit transport or receipt, the evidentiary value of private accounts, and matters not directly arising from the Tribunal's order were declined as they did not present referable questions of law. Questions that were covered by the referred issues, or that did not survive independently, were also rejected. The order thus separated legal questions suitable for reference from matters resting on facts or lacking direct nexus with the Tribunal's decision.

Conclusion: The remaining questions were held non-referable and were not sent for reference.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the extent that the identified questions of law were directed to be referred, while the rest were rejected as non-referable.

Ratio Decidendi: A question is referable when it is a substantive question of law arising from the order and, where relevant, involves a conflict of judicial opinion; questions resting on facts or not arising from the order are not referable.

---