ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - Both these applications are filed by the applicant-assessee under section 44(2) 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") seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the common questions of law for opinion of this Court arising out of the common order dated April 5, 1983, passed by the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) in Appeal No. 53-I/80 for the period from October 19, 1971 to November 6, 1972. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant-firm was engaged in the business of grains, kirana and also functioned as commission agents. The assessment for the period referred to above was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ujjain, vide, his order dated March 18, 1976. The firm had stood dissolved with effect from July 20, 1974. The assessment was completed ex parte. The application preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, who by his order dated March 28, 1976, passed in Revision Case No. 64/Addl/II/RC/77-78 (Central) allowed the revision application holding that the ex parte proceedings were not in order. He also held that the turnover in respect of the business of M/s. N. A. Trading Co., Neemuch, was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the applicant. The matter was thus remanded to the assessing authority for fresh assessment (annexures "P/2" and "P/3"). The State of Madhya Pradesh effected an amendment in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act vide Act No. 25 of 1978 with effect from 1st October, 1978 whereby section 39 was amended by insertion of sub-section (5) conferring right of appeal by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to the Tribunal against the orders of his predecessor or any Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax if the same were held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Sub-section (5A) was also inserted in section 39 vide Act No. 19 of 1979. The non-applicant, Commissioner, under the umbrella of amended provisions of law filed appeal against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of March 28, 1976 (annexure "P/3"). Sub-section (5A) was also inserted in section 39 vide Act No. 19 of 1979. The non-applicant, Commissioner, under the umbrella of amended provisions of law filed appeal against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of March 28, 1976 (annexure "P/3"). On receipt of the notice of such appeal, the applicant raised preliminary objections through application dated January 11, 1982 (annexure "P/5") against tenability of the appeal on several grounds. The preliminary objections were overruled by order dated November 5, 1982. It was held that the appeal was within limitation and was competent in law (annexure "P/6"). The applicant filed Misc. Petition No. 338 of 1983 in this Court against the order dated November 5, 1982. This petition was, however, withdrawn to seek reference at proper stage. The Tribunal fixed the date on March 2, 1983 for final hearing. The applicant sent telegram and application for adjournment. Ignoring this request, the Tribunal heard the appeal in absence of the applicant and decided the same on merit. The revisional order, which was passed in favour of the applicant by the Additional Commissioner, was held erroneous and set aside and ex parte assessment was held justified vide order dated April 5, 1983 (annexure "P/7"). the applicant then filed the application securing the reference (annexure "P/8"). The application was rejected. The applicant then filed these reference applications, as noted above, and formulated as many as eight question of law. 3. We have heard Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/revenue. 4. Adjournment of a case is a discretionary matter but the discretion as held by Lord Mansfield in John Wilkes case (1770) 4 Burr 2528 is required to be sound, not arbitrary or capricious. In fiscal matter, high stakes are involved. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the refusal of adjournment is based on proper exercise of the discretion. It also seems proper to examine whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner was competent in law and was not barred by the law of limitation. As regards adjournment AIR 1995 SC 1857 (Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah) lays down the law. 5. In our view these questions alone arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal on April 5, 1983. As regards adjournment AIR 1995 SC 1857 (Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah) lays down the law. 5. In our view these questions alone arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal on April 5, 1983. The questions considered necessary are re-formulated as under : "(i) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in declining to adjourn the hearing of the appeal and in deciding the same in the absence of the applicant ? (ii) Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner under the amended provisions of law was tenable in law and was within limitation ?" 6. Accordingly we allow these reference applications in part and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this Court the aforesaid two questions for our opinion. 7. The Tribunal is called upon in terms of section 44(4) of the State Act to state the case properly and refer the aforesaid questions of law for our answer. 8. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar in terms of section 44(5) of the Act. As the matter is quite old, we further direct the Tribunal to make an endeavour to comply with this order within a period of six months from the receipt of the copy of the order. 9. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs as incurred. 10. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 277 of 1986 and its copy shall be placed in the record of connected case, as noted above. Applications allowed.