CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.

1. BY a single reference, the Tribunal has referred to this Court two questions of law, said to be common to applications for refund made by eight different persons with respect to two consecutive years. It was conceded on behalf of the assessees that while a consolidated reference concerning the assessment of the same assessee for different years could be made, if the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in regard to them was common, no such consolidated reference was permissible in respect of assessments of or applications by different assessees. In the present case, there is a further irregularity. On the one hand, the cases of eight different assessees have been combined in a single reference. On the other hand all the necessary papers regarding even one of them have not been included in the paper book. Apparently, the Tribunal intended that the case of Tarunendra Nath Tagore should be taken as typical of the whole group, but while purporting to include in the paper book the respondent's reply to his application under s. 66(1) of the Act, as the index would show, they have in fact included the respondent's reply to the application