JUDGMENT : N. D. OJHA, C. J. The Board of Revenue, M. P. , Gwalior, which is the Tribunal constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion under section 44 (1) of the Act : " Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the object and preamble of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 8a thereof did not lay down restrictions on the calculation of the taxable turnover of inter-State sale (sic) of coal for the purpose of levying of tax under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 ?" 2. The assessee-applicant is a dealer in coal which is one of the declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "central Act" ). The relevant period of assessment was from 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1978. For this period the applicant was assessed to sales tax under the M. P. Act. Coal being one of the declared goods, the rate of tax which was applied was 4 per cent as prescribed in section 15 of the Central Act. The plea raised by the assessee before the authorities below was that since coal was one of the declared goods to which section 15 of the Central Act was applicable, its turnover had to be determined as contemplated by section 8a of the Central Act. This plea, however, did not find favour with the authorities below including the Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee, however, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question to this Court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that on the facts of the instant case, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the Tribunal. Section 15 of the Central Act lays down restrictions with regard to declared goods under section 14 of that Act. One of such restrictions is that the rate of tax is not to exceed 4 per cent of the sale price of the declared goods. The term "sale price" is defined in the M. P. Act and since the assessment was made under that Act, the sale price had to be determined as contemplated by that Act. 4. One of such restrictions is that the rate of tax is not to exceed 4 per cent of the sale price of the declared goods. The term "sale price" is defined in the M. P. Act and since the assessment was made under that Act, the sale price had to be determined as contemplated by that Act. 4. With regard to the plea that section 8a of the Central Act should have been invoked to determine the amount of turnover, suffice it to say so far as this plea is concerned that the said section specifically contemplates determination of turnover "for the purposes of this Act". Accordingly, it is only for those goods where sales tax is assessed under the Central Act that the turnover has to be determined as contemplated by section 8a of the Central Act. Since in the instant case, the sales tax was leviable and assessed under the M. P. Act, section 8a of the Central Act obviously could not be invoked and the turnover had to be determined on the basis of the definition of the said term under the M. P. Act. As regards the determination of the quantum of valuable consideration for goods sold for purposes of finding out the sale price, within the meaning of section 2 (o) of the M. P. Act, the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1971] 28 STC 331; [1971] VKN 389 has to be followed. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the aforesaid question referred to us is in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative. .