Defective reference of law question can be returned for reframing when it does not match the Tribunal's recorded findings.

Where a Tribunal refers a substantial question of law that does not correspond to any recorded finding in its own order, the reference is defective and requires correction. The High Court may invoke Section 55(4) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to call for alteration or addition to the statement of case so that the question accurately reflects the record. The matter is then returned for reframing and fresh reference of the legal issue, without any decision on the merits of the tax assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had correctly referred the substantial question of law for determination, when its own order did not record a finding that the assessment was made on the basis of the guiding principles in Gannon Dunkerley; (ii) whether the High Court could direct the Tribunal to alter and reframe the question under Section 55(4) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had correctly referred the substantial question of law for determination, when its own order did not record a finding that the assessment was made on the basis of the guiding principles in Gannon Dunkerley.

Analysis: The reference made by the Tribunal proceeded on an assumption that it had held the assessment to be made on the basis of the guiding principles laid down in Gannon Dunkerley. On scrutiny of the appellate and tribunal orders, no such finding was found to have been recorded. Since the referred question did not arise from the actual findings, the question as framed was not fit for determination in that form.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had not correctly framed the substantial question of law in the form referred, and the question required alteration.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could direct the Tribunal to alter and reframe the question under Section 55(4) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 55(4) empowers the High Court, where the stated case is insufficient to enable determination of the question of law, to call upon the Tribunal to make such additions or alterations as may be directed. As the referred question did not correspond to the actual findings, the statutory power to require alteration and reframing was attracted.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was directed to suitably alter the substantial question of law and refer it afresh for determination.

Final Conclusion: The matter was not decided on the merits of the tax assessment, and the reference was returned to the Tribunal for reframing of the legal question in conformity with the recorded findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the question of law referred by a Tribunal does not reflect any actual finding recorded in its order, the High Court may invoke the statutory power to require the Tribunal to alter or add to the statement of case so that the true question arising from the record is properly referred.

---