JUDGMENT K.C. DAS GUPTA, J. 1. This appeal is against a judgment of the Nagpur High Court by which it answered two of the three questions referred to it under S. 23 of the C. P. & Berar Sales-Tax Act, 1947, against the present appellant. As the learned counsel for the appellant did not however press the appeal as regards the High Court's decision on one of the questions, we are concerned in this appeal with only one of the three questions which were before the High Court. This question was referred by the Board as per the High Court's order under S. 23 (3) of the Act. It is in these terms:- "Whether the transactions between the petitioners and its selling agents outside the province were "sales" within the meaning of the Act." 2. The appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Bidis and has its place of business in Jabalpur within the State of Madhya Pradesh. In its revised return for the period of June 1, 1947 to November 12, 1947, it showed its gross turnover at Rs. 12,71,817/2/6 In addition to claims for deductions on account of cost of freight and commission paid to its agents with which we are no longer concerned it claimed deduction also of Rs. 12,38,597/7/0 on the allegation that the goods which were the subject-matter of some of the sale transactions were exported for sale outside the province. This claim as well as the other claims having been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales-Tax, Jabalpur Region- "the company applied to the Board of Revenue for revision of the. Assistant Commissioner's order. As regards this claim of Rs. 12,58,597-7-0 being the price of goods said to have been exported outside the province the Board came to the definite conclusion that the contracts of sale in respect of these goods were all made when the goods were situate in the province. The Board took note of the fact that these goods were sold to two classes of purchasers, one class being formed of dealers who were said to have acted as company's agents and the other of direct purchasers. The Board took note of the fact that these goods were sold to two classes of purchasers, one class being formed of dealers who were said to have acted as company's agents and the other of direct purchasers. It also pointed out that whatever understanding there might have existed with the "so called agents" about replacing the damaged goods or taking back goods unsold did nor affect the legal position that even before the actual transfer of property might have taken place outside the province the sale would be deemed to have taken place in the province for the reason that the contract of sale was made when the goods were in the province. It was in this view that the Board held that the sales shown by the appellant under the head "export outside the province' had been rightly included by the Assistant Commissioner in the taxable turnover. It was in this state of the findings that the High Court directed the Board to refer to it the question already mentioned above, viz "whether the transactions between the petitioners and its agents outside the province were "sales' within the meaning of the Act." 3. At first sight one might think that the controversy raised in this question was whether the transactions between the petitioners and those whom it claimed to be its selling agents were "sales" within the meaning of the Act or whether they were merely despatches to persons who were really selling agents for the purpose of sale to other persons. It appears reasonable to think, however, that the controversy sought to be expressed in this question was whether the sales in respect of the goods despatched to the persons called agents-whether or not these were sales to these agents or sales to other persons through the agents-were "sales" within the State of Madhya Pradesh That is how the High Court understood the question and that is how the learned counsel for the appellant wants us to understand the question. The question for decision thus being whether the sale of the goods which were sent by the company to its agents outside the province were sales in Madhya Pradesh, Explanation II of S. 2 (g) of the Sales-Tax Act falls to be considered. The question for decision thus being whether the sale of the goods which were sent by the company to its agents outside the province were sales in Madhya Pradesh, Explanation II of S. 2 (g) of the Sales-Tax Act falls to be considered. Under this Explanation if the goods in respect of which a sale is concluded are within the State of Madhya Pradesh at the time the contract of sale is made the sale will be deemed to have taken place in Madhya Pradesh, wherever the contract of sale may be made. Before this Explanation can be applied two questions of fact have to be decided. First, the time of the contract and secondly whether at that time the goods were in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Once it is found that at the time the contracts of sale are made the goods are situate within the province, the Explanation has full application and no question of law arises. In the present case we have the definite findings of the Board that the contracts for sale were made when the goods were situate in the province of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Pathak has tried to argue that there was no material on which the Board could hold that the goods were situate in the province when the contract for sale were made. He, has in this connection, tried to convince us that it is only after the goods have been ascertained for appropriation to a particular contract that the question whether the goods were situate in the province when the contracts for sale were made can be answered. We have to notice however that no question as regards the absence of evidence had been referred to the Board. As the High Court has pointed out "the question whether there was any evidence in support of a particular finding is a question of law, but any attempt made by the learned counsel for the assessee to raise that question is belated" and that the learned counsel for the assessee never suggested to the referring authority to frame any such question. We agree with the High Court that it was not open to it to go behind the findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue and that the findings being that the goods were situate in the province of Madhya Pradesh when the contracts of sale were made the conclusion that inevitably followed was that the sales were made within the State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. We are therefore of opinion that the High Court rightly answered the question, viz whether the transaction between the petitioners and its selling agents outside the province were "sales" within the meaning of the Act, in the affirmative. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed