JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. These two references arise out of the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. During the years ended on September 30, 1972, and September 30, 1973, the assessee was required to pay Rs. 3,084 and Rs. 3,148 as penalty to the State Government under section 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, for the default committed by it, viz., failing to pay tax due within the prescribed time. The assessee claimed deduction of these amounts. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the said claim on the ground that the payment which was made was by way of penalty and, therefore, not an allowable expenditure. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner succeeded and the addition of these amounts was ordered to be deleted. The Revenue, therefore, preferred two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by two separate orders, allowed the two appeals holding that the payments which were made by the assessee were for infraction of law and were not in the nature of compensatory interest. It was, therefore, not allowable as revenue expenditure or even as a trade loss. The assessee thereupon moved the Tribunal by filing two separate applications for referring questions of law arising out of the orders passed by the Tribunal to this court. By a common statement of case, the Tribunal has referred the following four questions to this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in construing the provisions of section 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, to hold that the interest payment made would be penalty for infraction of law and not allowable as revenue expenditure ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest paid for late payment of sales tax was in the nature of penalty and hence not allowable as deduction ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Supreme Court decision in 88 ITR 192 was applicable only with reference to penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act and not otherwise ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Supreme Court decision in 88 ITR 192 was applicable only with reference to penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act and not otherwise ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly applied the ratio of the Supreme Court and various High Courts decisions ?" 2. It may be stated that there were two separate appeals before the Tribunal and there were two separate reference applications made to it for two different assessment years. The Tribunal, therefore, should have made two references to this court. Since the Tribunal has failed to do so, we direct the High Court office to register two references treating I. T. R. No. 228 of 1980 as reference arising out of Reference Application No. 44 of 1978-79 pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74. The other reference arising out of Reference Application No. 45 of 1978-79 for the assessment year 1974-75 will have to be given a separate number. 3. The point similar to the one which arises for consideration in these references arose for our consideration in I.T.R. No. 73 of 1980 (Orient Trading Co. v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 481). In that reference, we have held that payment made under section 45 of the Act is in the nature of penalty and is not in the nature of compensatory interest. We have further held that, for that reason, the payment made by way of penalty cannot be allowed as deduction, it being payment for infraction of law. Following the judgment in that reference, decided on January 20, 21, 1983, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our judgment in I.T.R. No. 73 of 1980 (Orient Trading Co. v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 481), we do not think it fit to answer questions Nos. 3 and 4. These references are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.