JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 138 of 1984 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Singhai Karelal Kundanlal Trust, Sagar) also inasmuch as common questions arise in both these cases and the assessee in both these cases is the same. ( 2. ) THE Board of Revenue which is the Tribunal constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has referred under Section 44 (1) of the Act the following two questions to this Court for its opinion : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction of Rs. 49,68,044 represents the katchi adhat transaction not taxable in the hands of the dealers ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner remanding the case to the assessing authority was lawful and justified ? ( 3. ) THE facts in a nutshell necessary for answering the aforesaid two questions are that the assessee is a dealer in food-grains and oil-seeds. Its case is that it had mainly dealt with in katchi adhat and, therefore, not subject to tax. The transaction with regard to the period 30th October, 1970 to 18th October, 1971 was for Rs. 49,68,044. 00 whereas for the period 19th October, 1971 to 5th November, 1972 the transaction was for Rs. 62,61,442. 62. Two questions, therefore, came up for consideration. The first question was whether the transactions which represented katchi adhat transactions were taxable. The other question was as to which of the transactions represented katchi adhat transactions and which pucki adhat. The assessing authority decided the matter against the assessee. The appeals filed against the order of the assessing authority were allowed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the cases were remanded for being decided afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 202 of 1973 which was a case of the present assessee itself in respect of the assessment (Diwali) year 1965-66 and is reported in Karelal Kundanlal Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. [1980] 46 STC 202. ( 4. ( 4. ) TWO appeals were preferred against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax before the Tribunal, being Appeal No. 174-III of 1980 relating to the period of assessment 30th October, 1970 to 18th October, 1971 and Appeal No. 175-III of 1980 relating to the period 19th October, 1971 to 5th November, 1972. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that even though the question whether transactions representing katchi adhat transactions were not taxable in the hands of the assessee stood decided by the decision in the case of Karelal Kundanlal [1980] 46 STC 202 (MP) the question as to which of the transactions represented katchi adhat and which pucki adhat transactions had yet to be decided. ( 5. ) SINCE a common reference has been made by the Tribunal with regard to both the periods mentioned above, it appears that in question No. (1) the amount of only one year, namely, the year between 30th October, 1970 and 18th October, 1971, has been mentioned and the amount, namely, Rs. 62,61,442. 62, which represented the transaction for the year between 19th October, 1971 and 5th November, 1972 had inadvertently not been mentioned but as both the cases have been remanded, obviously it is of no serious consequence, the question of law being the same with regard to both the years. ( 6. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that such transactions which represent katchi adhat transactions are not taxable in the hands of the assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Karelal Kundanlal [1980] 46 STC 202. In that case the question referred to this Court was answered by saying that the assessee was not a dealer in respect of transactions of Rs. 74,00,741. 96 and these transactions could not be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. These transactions were katchi adhat transactions. In that case the question referred to this Court was answered by saying that the assessee was not a dealer in respect of transactions of Rs. 74,00,741. 96 and these transactions could not be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. These transactions were katchi adhat transactions. Here we may point out that the record of M. C. C. No. 202 of 1973 the decision of which is reported in [1980] 46 STC 202 (MP) (Karelal Kundanlal Trust v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) was sent for by us and its perusal indicates that against the order of this Court in M. C. C. No. 202 of 1973 dated 14th December, 1979, petition for special leave to appeal (Civil No. 4817 of 1980) was filed in the Supreme Court and was dismissed on merits on 16th November, 1982. ( 7. ) SINCE the question as to "which of the transactions in each of the two cases were katchi adhat transactions and which of them were pucki adhat transactions is a relevant question to be decided, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for deciding that question. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, our answer to the two questions referred to us is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, such of the transactions which represent katchi adhat transactions are not taxable in the hands of the assessee and that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the case to the assessing authority for deciding the question as to which of the transactions represented katchi adhat transactions and which represented pucki adhat transactions. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.