ORDER This is an application under Section 23(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, requiring the Board of Revenue to state the case and refer it as questions of law are said to arise out of its order, dated the 14th December, 1951, passed under Section 22(5) of the Act arising out of assessment for the period 1st June, 1947, to 12th November, 1947. 2. The assessee is a bidi merchant. His head office is situated in Kamptee. Bidis are manufactured at Kodamendi and Khat, both in Ramtek tahsil and at Kamptee. In addition, there are several places where his bidis are manufactured. The bidis are collected and stored either at Kamptee or at the two additional places of business in Ramtek tahsil for despatch outside the State in fulfilment of the orders received at the head office. The assessee has also a branch shop at Mandsaur in Gwalior State. Bidis which were originally despatched from this State were also distributed by that shop to some of the customers in that area. Orders for the supply of bidis used to be received directly at the head office or at Mandsaur shop. Goods used to be consigned to the customers by railway. The railway receipts and bills were sent to the consignee either through a bank or V.P.P. Sometimes goods were supplied on credit. Some bills were collected through the branch shop against delivery of railway receipts. 3. The gross turnover of bidis and tobacco amounted to Rs. 6,81,590-7-6 which included a sum of Rs. 1,890-11-6 recovered by the assessee from his labourers on account of tobacco or other materials either retained or not accounted for by them. The assessee in his return had shown a total turnover of Rs. 6,79,699-12-0. The despatches for which particulars were supplied were as under :- Method Value of goods. (1) Through Bank Rs. 2,76,997-14-0 (2) By V.P.P. Rs. 13,067-11-0 (3) By credit system Rs. 2,07,729-1-0 4. The contention of the assessee was that he was not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover, as bidis were sold outside the State. The sales in case of goods distributed by the branch shop at Mandsaur should be considered to be complete after the delivery of the railway receipts. 5. 13,067-11-0 (3) By credit system Rs. 2,07,729-1-0 4. The contention of the assessee was that he was not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover, as bidis were sold outside the State. The sales in case of goods distributed by the branch shop at Mandsaur should be considered to be complete after the delivery of the railway receipts. 5. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal on the following grounds :- "It may be emphasised here that the applicant has all along urged that the acceptance of orders received from outside or even through his branch shop at Mandsaur was every time against the stocks in hand which were situated in this province. Thus the provisions of Explanation (11) to the definition of sale in Section 2(g) of the Sales Tax Act are attracted and no matter where the actual transfer of property in the goods may take place, the sale shall be deemed to have taken place in this province." 6. The alternative stand of the assessee was that the sales amounting to Rs. 97,945-10-0 should have been excluded from the taxable turnover as orders covering them were received prior to the 1st of June, 1947, when the Act came into force. The Tribunal held that the contracts of sale were made during the quarter in question when the orders were accepted and goods actually despatched. It upheld the finding of the Sales Tax Commissioner. The item of Rs. 1,890-11-6 included in the taxable turnover by the Assistant Commissioner was excluded. 7. The third contention of the assessee was that the packing charges amounting to Rs. 23,157-6-0 and an amount of Rs. 250 on account of dharmada should not be included in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal held that the packing charges were part of the sale price and could not be excluded from the taxable turnover. On the same ground, the payment on account of dharmada was held to be covered by the definition of sale price. 8. The assessee submitted an application under Section 23(1) of the Act asking the Tribunal to state the case and refer it to this court. According to him, three questions of law were involved. On the same ground, the payment on account of dharmada was held to be covered by the definition of sale price. 8. The assessee submitted an application under Section 23(1) of the Act asking the Tribunal to state the case and refer it to this court. According to him, three questions of law were involved. He, however, withdrew question No. (1) in view of the decision of this Court in Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 343; 1952 N.L.J. 373; Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 258 of 1951, decided on the 25th April, 1952). He proposed a fresh question, but it was not allowed as it was raised beyond 60 days. The remaining questions proposed by the assessee were as follows :- "(1) Whether on a true construction of Act No. XXI of 1947 it could be held that the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 97,945-10-0 in respect of sales occasioned by the orders received before but executed after coming into force of that Act which was on the 1st June, 1947, were assessable to tax ? (2) Whether (a) the packing expenses and (b) dharmada charges could be held to form part of sale price such as was assessable to tax ?" Question No. (1), in the opinion of the Tribunal, did not involve any question of law. The sales were effected after the Sales Tax Act had come into force. The question No. (2) was referred and is the subject of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 105 of 1952. The applicant in his application has raised an additional question which is as follows :- "Whether the recovery of sales tax is illegal and whether the assessee is entitled to its refund, in view of the decision in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 258 of 1951 decided on the 25th April, 1952, by this Honourable Court ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 343; 1952 N.L.J. 373; Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 258 of 1951, decided on the 25th April, 1952)." 9. This case relates to the assessment for the period ending the 12th November, 1947. The decision in Miscellaneous Civil No. 258 of 1951 does not hold that the sales tax recovered for this period is illegal or is liable to be refunded. The learned Counsel has not advanced any grounds to entitle the applicant to a refund of the tax paid by him. The decision in Miscellaneous Civil No. 258 of 1951 does not hold that the sales tax recovered for this period is illegal or is liable to be refunded. The learned Counsel has not advanced any grounds to entitle the applicant to a refund of the tax paid by him. This question was not raised before the Sales Tax Authorities and was not raised before the Board of Revenue. We do not think that the question can fairly be canvassed on the order of the Board of Revenue passed in this case. 10. The important questions of law which appear to arise in this case are :- "(i) Whether despatches of goods after the Act came into force against orders received prior to the Act are in law sales within Section 2(h) of the Act ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the goods despatched outside the State can in law be regarded as sales within Section 2(h) of the Act read with Explanation (11) ? (iii) Whether these provisions are ultra vires the State Legislature ?" 11. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant contends that these questions are adequately answered by this Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 258 of 1951 (See [1952] 3 S.T.C. 343) and can no longer be regarded as debatable questions of law. The Sales Tax Act does require the Board of Revenue to state the case and the question of law arising out of its order. It is not for that authority to decide whether the questions of law are open to debate or not. That authority and the authorities subordinate to it are bound to follow the decision of this Court. Unless a reference is made to the High Court, the correctness of that view cannot be tested. The Board of Revenue has, therefore, to state a case whenever a question of law arises out of its order unless it is settled by a decision of the Supreme Court. 12. It is also the duty of the Board of Revenue to refer all questions of law arising out of its order whether they are stated by the applicant in his application under Section 23(1) or not. The provision does not require him to state such questions. He simply points out such questions. 12. It is also the duty of the Board of Revenue to refer all questions of law arising out of its order whether they are stated by the applicant in his application under Section 23(1) or not. The provision does not require him to state such questions. He simply points out such questions. The Board of Revenue must consider whether a question of law brought to its notice during the hearing of the case arises or not. No limitation is prescribed for the purpose. 13. Under these circumstances, we hold that the order of the Board of Revenue rejecting the application under Section 23(1) is not correct, and require the Tribunal to state the case and the question of law arising out of its order dated the 14th December, 1951. 14. The application is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50 if certified. Application allowed.