Reference under Section 35G requires a genuine legal question arising from the Tribunal order; separate refund and self-credit routes matter.

A reference to the High Court under Section 35G was not justified unless the proposed question genuinely arose from the Tribunal's order and involved a real point of law. The Tribunal treated Rule 173-G(2)(vii) and Rule 11 as separate remedies, so the procedural requirements of the self-credit route could not be imported into a refund claim under Rule 11. Because the assessee had pursued refund rather than self-credit, and Rule 11 had since been repealed, the proposed question lacked practical and legal foundation. The reference application was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the point of law proposed by the Collector arose out of the Tribunal's order so as to justify a reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 35G was that the question must arise from the Tribunal's order and must be a genuine point of law. The Tribunal had treated Rule 173-G(2)(vii) and Rule 11 as separate remedies for obtaining relief, and there was no basis for reading the procedural requirements of Rule 173-G(2)(vii) into a refund claim made under Rule 11. The assessee had not chosen the self-credit route under Rule 173-G(2)(vii) but had pursued refund under Rule 11, and the repeal of Rule 11 further reduced any practical utility of a reference.

Conclusion: The proposed question did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and no reference was warranted; the application was therefore liable to be rejected.

---