Reference of questions of law cannot be refused by the Tribunal merely because the dispute appears final or academic.

Questions of law arising out of a Tribunal order must be referred under the governing reference provision, and the Tribunal cannot refuse reference merely because the dispute has allegedly become final or the questions may appear academic. The power to decline an unnecessary or academic question lies with the High Court, not the Tribunal. On that basis, the objection to maintainability of the reference was rejected and all five questions of law were referred for consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions of law raised by the Collector, including the objection that the matter had become final and was academic, were required to be referred to the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the questions raised were questions of law arising out of its order. It rejected the contention that the absence of further challenge on merits or the alleged finality of the earlier order could prevent reference. The Tribunal held that the discretion to decline an academic or unnecessary question lies with the High Court, whereas the Tribunal, under the governing reference provision, is bound to refer questions of law arising from its order. Accordingly, the objection to maintainability of the reference was rejected.

Conclusion: The reference application was maintainable and the Tribunal referred all five questions of law to the High Court in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where questions of law arise out of the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal must refer them under the reference provision, and cannot refuse reference merely because the questions may be academic or because the dispute has otherwise attained finality between the parties.

---