JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-assessee (M/s. Filter Co., Neemuch) the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has referred the undernoted common questions of law under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the State Act") read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the Central Act") arising out of the common order of the Tribunal dated March 28, 1986, passed in Second Appeals Nos. 166-IV/85, 167-IV/85, 168-IV/85 and 98-IV/85 for our opinion : "(i) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is justified in law in not going into the question of merits of 'felts' above 3 mm. thickness on the ground that the honourable Supreme Court has concluded the matter in the order passed under section 42-B by the Commissioner of Sales Tax ? (ii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the honourable Supreme Court has finally concluded on merits that felts above 3 mm. thickness did not satisfy the test of pliability and is, therefore, not exempt from tax under entry 6, Schedule I of the State Act ? (iii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is right in refusing to examine afresh the test of pliability of felts above 3 mm. thickness ? (iv) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order dated January 25, 1983, passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 42-B can be retrospectively applied or not ?" 2. Facts common in these four reference applications are that the applicant-assessee is a registered dealer under the State Act as well as under the Central Act. It is a manufacturer of compressed woollen felts. On March 25, 1971, the applicant addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, along with sample seeking clarification about the compressed felts manufactured by it. It is a manufacturer of compressed woollen felts. On March 25, 1971, the applicant addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, along with sample seeking clarification about the compressed felts manufactured by it. By his letter No. Vik/F/32/71/2317 dated August 7, 1971, the Commissioner of Sales Tax (C.S.T.) intimated the applicant that the specimen of felt submitted by it is woollen fabric and as such exempt under the State Act under entry 6 of its Schedule I. On the basis of this clarification issued by the C.S.T., the turnover of the applicant pertaining to the sales of compressed woollen felt was not subjected to tax. Later on as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills AIR 1977 SC 1548 , the C.S.T. vide his letter No. ST/I-310/24(b)/79/2872 dated March 4, 1982, intimated the applicant that the compressed woollen felts were not woollen fabrics and as such woollen felt manufactured by it will not receive exemption under entry 6 of Schedule I to the State Act but shall fall under entry 1 of Part VI of Schedule II and will thus be subjected to tax at 10 per cent. The earlier clarification of August 7, 1971, was accordingly superseded and cancelled. The assessments, both under the State and Central Acts, were made. The applicant filed revision. In the meantime on the application of the assessee the CST passed the orders under section 42-B of the State Act on January 25, 1983, in which the CST held that "pliability" and "use" will be the determining factors to ascertain as to whether the compressed woollen felts qualify for being called felt cloth. After examining 26 specimens of varying thickness, hardness and density, the CST held that compressed woollen felts up to 3 mm. thickness qualify the test of pliability and were thus exempt from payment of tax. The matter went up to the Supreme Court which upheld the test of pliability applied by the CST but rejected the test of use. The decision is reported in [1986] 61 STC 318; (1986) 19 VKN 150 (Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh). thickness qualify the test of pliability and were thus exempt from payment of tax. The matter went up to the Supreme Court which upheld the test of pliability applied by the CST but rejected the test of use. The decision is reported in [1986] 61 STC 318; (1986) 19 VKN 150 (Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh). On the basis of the Sales Tax Commissioner's order under section 42-B of the State Act, the revisional authority remanded the cases to the assessing officer for fresh assessment in the light of the decision of the Sales Tax Commissioner dated January 25, 1983. On reassessment, after remand, the assessee was allowed exemption on compressed woollen felts up to 3 mm. thickness and was subjected to tax in respect of woollen felts above 3 mm. thickness at 10 per cent. The orders of assessments are annexures "C/1" to "C/4". The assessee preferred first appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam. The appeals were rejected. Copies of the orders are annexures "D/1" to "D/4". The assessee then filed second appeals before the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the order passed by the Sales Tax Commissioner under section 42-B on January 25, 1983, was prospective in operation and could not be applied retrospectively. It was also contended that it was wrong to hold that the woollen felt of above 3 mm. thickness did not satisfy the test of pliability and thus did not qualify for exemption under entry 6 of Schedule I of the State Act. The applicant, therefore, requested the Tribunal to go into the merits of the matter and to determine the question of pliability with regard to thickness. The Tribunal, however, did not go into this question and rejected all the four appeals by common order dated March 28, 1986 (annexure "E"). The applicant thereafter filed the applications seeking statements of cases and references. On the basis of the applications, the Tribunal referred the questions of law, as noted above. 3. We have heard Shri S. C. Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri S. Kulshreshtha, learned Additional Advocate-General for the non-applicant/department in all these four reference applications. 4. Both the sides agree that questions Nos. On the basis of the applications, the Tribunal referred the questions of law, as noted above. 3. We have heard Shri S. C. Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri S. Kulshreshtha, learned Additional Advocate-General for the non-applicant/department in all these four reference applications. 4. Both the sides agree that questions Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are incidental to question No. (i) and that if the answer on question No. (i) is recorded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue thereby requiring the Tribunal to go into the merits of the felts of above 3 mm. thickness, then no answer to questions No. (ii), (iii) and (iv) is necessary. 5. According to Oxford English Dictionary "cloth" means : "A piece of pliable woven or felted stuff, suitable for wrapping or winding around, spreading or folding over, drying, wiping or other purpose; a swaddling or winding cloth, wrap, covering, veil, curtain, handkerchief, towel, etc." 6. In Webster's New International Dictionary "cloth" is dated to mean : "A pliable fabric, woven, felted or knitted from any filament, commonly fabric or woven cotton, woollen, silk, rayon or linen fabric, used for garments, etc." 7. It is thus clear that "cloth" is woven, knitted or felted material which is pliable and is capable of being wrapped, folded or wound around. It need not necessarily be material suitable for making garments because there can be "cloth" suitable only for industrial purpose; but nevertheless it must possess the basic feature of pliability. Hard and thick material which cannot be wrapped or wound around cannot be regarded as "cloth". 8. Section 42-B of the State Act provides as under : "42-B. Determination of disputed questions. - (1) If any question is raised by a dealer in respect of the rate of tax on any goods, the Commissioner shall, in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, make an order determining the rate of tax on such goods. (2) Any order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) shall be binding on the authorities referred to in section 3 in all proceedings under the Act except appeals." 9. It is thus clear that any order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) is made binding on the authorities referred to in section 3 in all proceedings under the Act except appeals. It is thus clear that any order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) is made binding on the authorities referred to in section 3 in all proceedings under the Act except appeals. The implication is that the appellate authority is required to consider the question on the merits when presented before it despite any order passed by the Commissioner in terms of section 42-B of the State Act. 10. Following AIR 1974 SC 960 (Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India), the Supreme Court considered the validity of section 42 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) and pronounced about consequences of circulars issued under that section for the purpose of clarification and removal of difficulties and held in [1993] 90 STC 47 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 2414 (Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer), as under : "So far as clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and/or State Government are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the courts. It is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law. There can be no estoppel against the statute. The understanding of the Government, whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. It is doubtful whether such clarifications and circulars bind the quasi-judicial functioning of the authorities under the Act". 11. Even otherwise section 42-B of the State Act clearly mentions that orders shall be binding in all proceedings except appeals. It is thus clear that when the question was raised before the Tribunal, it was required to go into the merits of felts and decide the same according to facts as available on the record and according to the decision of the Supreme Court and in conformity with the provisions of the law. 12. We are thus satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in law in not going into the merits of felts of above 3 mm. thickness. The Tribunal was required to consider the question and then decide the same one way or other in conformity with law. 13. Ex consequenti, we answer the question No. (i) as noted above in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. thickness. The Tribunal was required to consider the question and then decide the same one way or other in conformity with law. 13. Ex consequenti, we answer the question No. (i) as noted above in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to this question, as agreed, the answer to other three connected questions is not necessary. The matter shall be at large and the Tribunal shall consider and decide the question in conformity with law consistent with facts and consistent with provisions of law bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court. 14. These reference applications raising common questions of law are thus answered accordingly with no order as to costs. 15. Copy of this common order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this Court under section 44(5) of the State Act. 16. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 126 of 1989 and one copy each shall be placed in the record of connected cases. Reference answered accordingly.