JUDGMENT : G. G. SOHANI, AG. C. J. The judgment in this case shall also govern the disposal of M. C. C. Nos. 411/86, 412/86 and 413/86, as common questions of law are involved in these cases. 2. By this reference under section 44 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its opinion : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty under section 17 (3) of the Act read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act on the assumption that penalty for non-compliance of section 17 (1) of the Act is leviable only on a dealer who is registered under the Act, when in fact a dealer liable to tax under section 7 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act is also a dealer deemed as registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act, is liable for compliance of section 17 (1) of the Act, irrespective of the fact that the deeming provisions under section 7 of the Act have not been adapted under the M. P. Entry Tax Act ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expression "raw material" occurring in section 3 (1) (b) of the Entry Tax Act qualified only "use" and not "consumption" ? 3. The material facts giving rise to these references, briefly, are as follows : The assessee is a Government undertaking. It was assessed to tax under the provisions of the M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The contention of the assessee was that entry tax could not be levied on the assessee as the goods, entry of which was effected by the assessee into certain local areas, were not used or consumed as raw materials. The assessing authority rejected this contention of the assessee and also imposed penalty under section 17 (3) read with section 13 of the Act. The first appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected. The assessing authority rejected this contention of the assessee and also imposed penalty under section 17 (3) read with section 13 of the Act. The first appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected. On further appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Board held that entry tax was leviable if the goods specified in Schedule III to the Act entered into a local area were consumed by the assessee and that it was not necessary that the goods should have been consumed as raw materials. The Board, however, held that as the assessee was not a registered dealer, penalty under section 17 (3) of the Act could not have been imposed. In this view of the matter, the Board of Revenue partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, both the assessee as well as the department sought references. That is how question No. 1 has been referred at the instance of the department, while question No. 2 has been referred at the instance of the assessee. 4. To answer question No. 2, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of section 3 (b) of the Act which are as follows : " Section 3. Incidence of taxation : (1) There shall be levied an entry tax - (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) On the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw material. . . . . . . . . . . . but not for sale therein and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but not for sale therein and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods. . . . . . . " From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it would be clear that for imposition of tax under section 3 (1) (b) of the Act, there must be an entry of goods into each local area by a dealer in the course of business, that the goods must be for consumption as raw material but not for sale therein, or that the said goods are for use as raw material or as packing material or in the execution of works contract, but not for sale therein. Mere consumption would not attract the levy of tax as held by the Board. Entry of the goods in question should have been effected either for consumption as raw material or for use as raw material. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in holding that the expression "raw material" occurring in section 3 (1) (b) of the Act qualified the word "use" and not "consumption. " 5. In view of our answer to question No. 2, learned counsel for the parties conceded that question No. 1 did not arise for consideration. We therefore, decline to answer that question. 6. Our answer to question No. 2, therefore, is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the expression "raw materials" occurring in section 3 (1) (b) of the Act qualified only the word "use" and not "consumption". In view of our answer to question No. 2, we decline to answer question No. 1 as that question does not arise. 7. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Reference answered accordingly. .