ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, Gwalior) has referred the undernoted common question of law in all these three reference applications for answer by this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in law in holding that there was an implied sale of containers in which the lubricating oils and greases were sold to the customers at a unit rate per litre/kilogram basis ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant-assessee (formerly known as Esso Eastern Inc.) is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of petroleum products. It was assessed to tax for the period December 26, 1967 to December 25, 1968 (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 296 of 1986), December 26, 1971 to December 25, 1972 and December 26, 1972 to December 25, 1973 (Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 352 of 1986 and 427 of 1986). The assessee challenged the order of the assessing authority on the ground that it was wrongly held that there was an implied sale of containers in which the lubricating oils and greases were sold to the customers. In first appeal the Deputy Commissioner maintained the order of assessment. The assessee then preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal. Thereafter at the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the question, as noted above. 3. We have heard Shri S. R. Phadnis, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department, in all these three cases. 4. The Tribunal noted that the prices of lubricants packed in containers have been duly approved by the State Government irrespective of the cost of the containers and the prices have been fixed accordingly on industry basis. The sales were made to the dealers during the assessment period on form XII-A, which bore a concessional rate of tax for lubricants. 5. The Tribunal noted that the prices of lubricants packed in containers have been duly approved by the State Government irrespective of the cost of the containers and the prices have been fixed accordingly on industry basis. The sales were made to the dealers during the assessment period on form XII-A, which bore a concessional rate of tax for lubricants. 5. Section 2(o) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"), substituted with effect from September 1, 1976 vide Act No. 48 of 1976, defines the "sale price" as under : "(o) 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged and the expression 'purchase price' shall be construed accordingly." 6. It also contained the Explanation vide Act No. 32 of 1984, with effect from July 1, 1984, was numbered as Explanation I. The explanation provides as under : "Explanation I. - Where goods are sold together with packing material or container, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the sale price of such goods shall be inclusive of the price or the cost or value of such packing material or container, whether such price or cost or value is charged separately or not, as if such packing material or container were the parts of the goods sold." 7. This explanation is now omitted with effect from October 1, 1990 vide Act No. 20 of 1990. 8. It is thus clear that the sale price was required to be inclusive of the price or the cost or value of such packing material or container whether such price or cost or value is charged separately or not, as if such packing material or container were the parts of the goods sold. 9. The period assessment is prior to September 1, 1976. The explanation clarifying this position has been deleted with effect from October 1, 1990. The lubricating oils/greases were sold on the rates approved by the State Government. 10. 9. The period assessment is prior to September 1, 1976. The explanation clarifying this position has been deleted with effect from October 1, 1990. The lubricating oils/greases were sold on the rates approved by the State Government. 10. After perusal of the statement of the case and the question referred to this Court and after considering the submissions of both the sides, we are not satisfied that the case stated is sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case where the Tribunal should be called upon to make appropriate additions and alterations in this regard. 11. In our view the question needs to be re-formulated as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is liable to be taxed separately for the cost or price of the container despite the legal position that 'sale price' of the goods is required to be inclusive of such cost or price ?" 12. The explanation clearly indicated that the sale price of the goods shall be inclusive of the cost or price of the container. The object of explanation is to clarify the position of the relevant provision. The Tribunal was required to apply the mind to the following factors : (a) What is the effect of approval of the sale price by the State Government ? (b) What is the effect of the explanation clarifying that the sale price is to be inclusive of the cost or price of the container ? (c) Whether there was any implied contract of sale of containers ? (d) Whether the assessee charged separately the cost or price of the containers ? (e) What actually is the transaction during the period of assessment ? (f) Whether sale price charged by the assessee was inclusive of the cost or price of the containers ? 13. For the purposes of stating the case and referring the question reformulated by us, the parties are granted liberty to make appropriate prayer to the Tribunal for production of the additional evidence, if required, and the Tribunal is granted freedom to accept such prayer in conformity with law. 14. Much would depend on the answer to the aforesaid points. The question, as submitted, is obscure and does not reflect the correct factual position. 14. Much would depend on the answer to the aforesaid points. The question, as submitted, is obscure and does not reflect the correct factual position. Now question of law is born of implications. 15. It is in view of this position that we have in the interest of justice re-formulated the question as noted above. 16. To enable the proper statement of the case and reference of the question as formulated, the parties may make appropriate prayer to the Tribunal for production of the additional evidence, if so desired by them, and thus, the Tribunal may consider such prayer and decide the same in conformity with law. 17. We, therefore, dispose of these three reference applications, in terms of section 44(4) of the Act. 18. The counsel for both the sides have seen the question and have consented to re-statement of the case and reference to the re-formulated question for answer. 19. In the result we find it fit to remand these cases back to the Tribunal in terms of section 44(4) of the Act and call upon it to re-state the case properly and refer the aforesaid question of law for our answer. The parties are left to bear their own costs of these references as incurred. These cases stand disposed of finally. 20. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal under the signature of the Registrar of this Court and seal of the High Court. The Tribunal shall comply with this order within one year, from receipt of order. 21. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 296 of 1986 and a copy thereof shall be placed in the corrected records of Misc. civil cases, as particularised above, for ready reference.