ORDER
R.K. Verma, J.
1. The applicant-assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in grains, oil-seeds, pulses, etc. and is a dealer registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The applicant-assessee has made this application under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying that the learned Tribunal be required to make a reference of the questions numbering six, as stated in the application and reproduced hereunder :
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in confirming the rejection of the tax-paid claim by Rs. 7,50,000 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in not considering the original bills of tax-paid purchases made by the petitioner and were duly recorded in the regular books of accounts and in rejecting the tax-paid claim by Rs. 7,50,000 ?
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in not exercising its discretion to accept the tax-paid claim of Rs. 7,50,000 for which original bills were produced before the assessing authority as well as before the Board of Revenue ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in considering the original bills of tax-paid purchases duly recorded in the books of account and lists of which were produced at the time of assessment, also produced before the Board of Revenue, as additional evidence not acceptable under Section 39A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?
5. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in law in confirming the imposition of tax on groundnut husk which is exempt under notification issued by the State Government exercising powers under Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the period under appeal was covered by the said notification ?
6. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in law in confirming the imposition of tax on bills cancelled and entries were made in the books and list was on record particularly the assessee is maintaining quantitative record and part of such goods were taxed during the immediately succeeding assessment year’s order ?
2. In the assessment of the assessee-firm to Madhya Pradesh general sales tax in respect of turnover of sales for the period 1978-79, the assessee’s claim in respect of tax-paid goods to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000 was rejected by the assessing authority. In appeal, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the bills relating to the tax-paid goods Were not produced under Section 39A of the Act. A second appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) by its order dated 22nd May, 1984. In the second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, certain bills were produced by the assessee, but the same were not considered. It was, however, not the contention of the assessee before the Tribunal that no opportunity was afforded to the assessee for production of those bills before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
3. The assessee sought a reference under Section 44(1) of the Act of the six questions as stated in the petition before us. The learned Tribunal has declined to refer the first four questions on the ground that they do not raise any question of law and has refused to refer the other two questions as they do not arise out of the Tribunal’s order in appeal. The assessee has, therefore, filed the present petition under Section 44(2) of the Act.
4. The first four questions stated in the assessee’s application pertain to the refusal to consider the assessee’s claim in respect of the tax-paid goods worth Rs. 7,50,000 on account of non-production of bills. The fifth question relates to a controversy inasmuch as the assessee claims that he had raised the contention of exemption of tax on groundnut husk under a notification issued by the State Government under Section 12 of the Act whereas the order of the Tribunal does not show any such contention having been raised before it. The sixth question likewise arises out of disputed facts inasmuch as the assessee asserts to have contended that certain quantity of goods sold on bills had returned and were sold in the following years, but the tax was imposed in spite of cancellation of bills, the learned Tribunal has held that no arguments were advanced before it regarding the quantitative accounts in support of the assessee’s contention in this behalf.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Tribunal’s order, we are of opinion that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal’s order as has been contended by the assessee so as to require the Tribunal to refer the same to this Court. This application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.