JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this reference under Section 44 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty was imposable under Section 43 (1) of the Act even when no returns for the relevant period were filed by the dealer ? ( 2. ) THE material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : The assessee deals in kirana, sugar, grain, etc. He was assessed to tax under the Act for the assessment year 1968-69. Best judgment assessment was framed as the assessee had submitted returns for the first and second quarters only but not for the third and fourth quarters. A penalty was imposed under Section 17 (3) of the Act on the assessee on account of delay in payment of tax with regard to the third and fourth quarters. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act should not be imposed upon it. In reply, the assessee inter alia contended that failure to submit returns did not amount to concealment and hence no penalty could be imposed under Section 43 (1) of the Act. This objection was overruled and penalty was imposed under Section 43 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the assessee sought reference on a number of questions of law but the Tribunal has chosen to refer only the aforesaid question of law to this Court for its opinion. S-66-33 ( 3. ) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee sought to raise other questions of law, which were not referred by the Tribunal. Now, if the assessee was aggrieved by the order of reference because the Tribunal did not refer certain questions of law, which the assessee wanted the Tribunal to refer to this Court, then the assessee should have submitted an application before this Court for directing the Tribunal to refer those questions of law. Now, if the assessee was aggrieved by the order of reference because the Tribunal did not refer certain questions of law, which the assessee wanted the Tribunal to refer to this Court, then the assessee should have submitted an application before this Court for directing the Tribunal to refer those questions of law. The assessee failed to do that. At this stage, we cannot permit the assessee to raise questions other than those referred to us by the Tribunal. ( 4. ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether legally it is permissible to impose penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act when return for the relevant period has not been filed by the dealer. Now Section 43 (1) of the Act is as follows : 43. Power of Commissioner or appellate authority to impose penalty.- (1) If the Commissioner or the appellate authority in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that the dealer has concealed his turnover or the aggregate amount of purchase prices in respect of any goods or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such sales or purchases, as the case may be, or furnished a false return, the Commissioner or the appellate authority, as the case may be, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may direct that the dealer shall, in addition to the tax payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum, which shall not be less than 20 per cent but shall not exceed one and one half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the returns furnished by the dealer had been accepted as correct or the concealment of the sales or purchases or inaccurate particulars of sales or purchases had not been detected. The word "conceal" has not been defined in the Act. In Websters Dictionary, its meaning is given as to hide or to put out of sight, to keep from anothers knowledge. In Babulal Agarwalv. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. 1986 CTJ 286, a Division Bench of this Court overruled the contention that as the return was not filed no penalty could be imposed under Section 43 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out any authority to the contrary. In Babulal Agarwalv. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. 1986 CTJ 286, a Division Bench of this Court overruled the contention that as the return was not filed no penalty could be imposed under Section 43 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out any authority to the contrary. We see no cogent reason for taking a view different from that taken in 1986 CTJ 286 (Babulal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ). In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that penalty is imposable under Section 43 (1) of the Act even when no return for the relevant period is filed by the assessee. ( 5. ) REFERENCE answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.