Judgment SHAH ( 1 ) THE Sales Tax Tribunal, State of Maharashtra, submitted for opinion two questions to the High Court of Bombay. They were : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the impugned transactions were not purchases within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Bombay sales Tax Act, 1953. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the impugned purchases were effected by the respondents outside the State of Bombay and that they were not inside the State of Bombay as per Explanation to article 286 (l) (a) of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE High Court answered the first question in the negative and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the impugned transactions were not purchases within the meaning of section 2 (13) of the Bombay Sales Tax act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act. ( 3 ) IN considering the second question, the High Court felt that on the material available to them the question could not be answered. It appears that counsel appearing for the parties also agreed that an answer to the second question need not be recorded and the parties may be given another opportunity to establish their respective cases about the actual place of delivery of coal. The High Court then proceeded to order that the case be remanded to the Tribunal with a direction that "each side may be given a chance to lead evidence either before the Tribunal or any other authority it may direct to take up the matter regarding actual delivery of coal. After such evidence is tendered, a finding will be recorded and the question will be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the material on the record according to law. " ( 4 ) WITH special leave, these appeals have been preferred against the order of the High Court. It is unfortunate that the true nature of the jurisdiction which they were called upon to exercise was ignored by the high Court. The matter came before the High Court in their advisory jurisdiction; the High Court had only to answer the questions submitted to them. It is unfortunate that the true nature of the jurisdiction which they were called upon to exercise was ignored by the high Court. The matter came before the High Court in their advisory jurisdiction; the High Court had only to answer the questions submitted to them. They could not remand the case to the Tribunal for recording evidence and a finding. If the statement of the case was not sufficient to enable them to answer the question raised, the High Court could, under section 34 (4) of the Act refer the case to the Tribunal to make such additions thereto or alterations therein. After the supplementary statement was received, the High Court could proceed to answer the question. But the High Court could not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal, a jurisdiction with which the Act does not invest the High Court. The order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remanding the case and allowing the parties a chance to lead evidence was wholly without jurisdiction and. cannot be upheld. It is true that counsel appearing for the parties also agreed to the procedure which the High Court in the final order adopted. But the agreement by counsel could not confer upon the High Court jurisdiction which it did not possess. ( 5 ) THE first question has been answered by the High Court; but section 34, clause (5), of the Act provides that the High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the question of law raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Tribunal a copy of such judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, and the Tribunal shall dispose of the case accordingly. It is implicit that all questions submitted to the High Court must be decided. That rule may be departed from only in those cases where the question is academic or does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal or is such that it will not dispose of the dispute, or is unnecessary or irrelevant and the high Court declines to answer the question. ( 6 ) OUT of the two questions, only one has been answered and the second has not been answered. ( 6 ) OUT of the two questions, only one has been answered and the second has not been answered. Even if the judgment of the high Court is communicated as required under section 34 (5) of the Act, the Tribunal cannot proceed to dispose of the case consistently with the judgment of the High Court, because there is no judgment of the high Court answering the second question. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that the High Court do hear and dispose of the reference according to law. We may observe that we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the answer recorded by the high Court on the first question. ( 8 ) THERE will be no order as to costs in these appeals. .