JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. C. C. Nos. 101 of 1984, 127 of 1984 and 131 of 1984 also. ( 2. ) THE Tribunal constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, has referred the following two questions to this Court for its opinion in all these four cases: (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the initial payment to be included in the amount on which depreciation is to be allowed ? (b) Whether the registration fee and insurance charges should not be included in the basic price for calculation of taxable turnover ? ( 3. ) THE facts in a nutshell necessary for answering the aforesaid two questions are that the assessee carries on business of sale of vehicles, furnitures and other goods as also of sale of vehicles under the hire-purchase system. The question which came up for determination was about the sale price of hire-purchase vehicles in order to find out the assessees turnover. ( 4. ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the assessing authority and the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee preferred four appeals before the Tribunal. These appeals were allowed by the Tribunal and the orders of the taxing authority and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner were set aside. The Tribunal remanded the case to the assessing authority for action in the manner indicated by it in its order of remand. The said order contains certain guidelines on the basis of which the matter is to be decided again by the assessing authority. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, even though the Tribunal had passed an order of remand, it referred the two questions mentioned above to this Court for its opinion. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the appellate order of the Tribunal in the second appeals, we are of the opinion that question No. (b) does not arise out of the said order. Accordingly, it does not call for any opinion of this Court. ( 6. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the appellate order of the Tribunal in the second appeals, we are of the opinion that question No. (b) does not arise out of the said order. Accordingly, it does not call for any opinion of this Court. ( 6. ) AS regards the question No. (a), we are of the opinion that the guideline laid down by the Tribunal in the order of remand, in so far as it is relevant for answering the aforesaid question, is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Johar and Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 213. The Supreme Court, inter alia, has held in the aforesaid case that there may be two ways of determining the price of the vehicle on the date the hirer exercises his option and becomes the owner of the vehicle after fulfilling the terms of the agreement. It is for the sales tax authorities on the facts and circumstances of each case to determine as to which of the two methods are to be adopted. It has not been urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the method adopted by the Tribunal was not open to be adopted at all. ( 7. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question No. (a) referred to us is that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the initial payment to be included in the amount on which depreciation is to be allowed. ( 8. ) AS regards question No. (b), since in our opinion, the said question does not arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal, it is returned unanswered. Under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.