JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The applicant-assessee has filed this reference application under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") proposing the undernoted two questions of law : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of the sales of tax-paid goods amounting to Rs. 78,369 under section 2(r)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 purchased from M/s. Gagan Supari Centre, Indore, a registered dealer under the said Act whose registration was cancelled with effect from June 26, 1981 ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in substantially departing from its earlier decisions on the identical point without referring the case to the President of the Board of Revenue for constituting a Division Bench of the Tribunal for its opinion as laid down in the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue under section 9 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant carries on the business of purchase and sales of sabudana, sugar, nariyal, haldi and other kirana goods at Indore. It is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. It was assessed to sales tax in Assessment Case No. 185/81-82/State for the period October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981. The applicant claimed deduction of sales of tax-paid goods amounting to Rs. 4,81,933. The assessing authority accepted the plea in part and disallowed the deduction of the sales amounting to Rs. 82,969. Out of the sum so disallowed, the sum of Rs. 78,369 related to the goods (sabudana) purchased from M/s. Gagan Supari Centre, 34, Siyaganj, Indore, holding registration certificate No. IND/7/40/1300 under the aforesaid Act. The disallowance rested on the ground that an enquiry revealed that the business was actually conducted by the association of certain persons and not by the aforesaid firm. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed the first appeal registered as No. 104/1984/State which was rejected by order dated April 5, 1985 (annexure B). The applicant then filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Appeal No. 237-PBR/85. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed the first appeal registered as No. 104/1984/State which was rejected by order dated April 5, 1985 (annexure B). The applicant then filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Appeal No. 237-PBR/85. It was contended in the appeal that the registration of the aforesaid firm was cancelled only with effect from June 26, 1981 as was published in the daily newspaper "Nai Duniya" of August 17, 1982 whereas the applicant had made purchases much before the date of cancellation, i.e., June 26, 1981. The Tribunal, however, held that the firm had never been in existence and was entirely bogus and thus, upheld the order of lower authority. The Appeal No. 237/PBR/85 was, however, allowed in part with remand of the matter for other purposes on January 29, 1987 (annexure C). Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act (annexure D). That application, registered as No. 32-III/87, was however, rejected on November 17, 1987 (annexure E). The applicant has, therefore, filed this application under section 44(2) of the Act. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pancholia for the applicant and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the Revenue. 4. Shri Chaphekar submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the firm was never in existence and was bogus. According to him, the registration was granted to the aforesaid firm which was cancelled only with effect from June 26, 1981. In this background, it cannot be said that the purchases made by the applicant before June 26, 1981 from this firm are not purchases from the registered dealer so as to disqualify for deduction. 5. Shri Mathur submitted that the question was one of fact and as such, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. 6. Section 2(rr) of the Act provides the definition of "tax-paid goods". It is stated that such goods in relation to a dealer meant any goods specified in Parts II to VI of Schedule II which have been purchased by such dealer from a registered dealer inside the State of Madhya Pradesh within the meaning of section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In Part IV of Schedule II at item No. 20, Sabudana is shown at (vi). In Part IV of Schedule II at item No. 20, Sabudana is shown at (vi). According to section 2(r) of the Act, taxable turnover means the turnover which remains after deducting therefrom, the sale price of goods mentioned in Parts II to VI of Schedule II which are in the nature of tax-paid goods in the hands of such dealer. 7. In the instant case, the question is whether the purchases can be said to have been made from a registered dealer. 8. In [1971] 28 STC 322 (SC) (Gopiram Bhagwandass v. Stale of Bihar), it is held as under : "Where the dealers to whom the assessee had made sales were duly registered, the registration number was shown against the name of each dealer and they had given the requisite declaration, the question whether, in the event of the purchasing dealers being found to be bogus and fictitious persons, the assessee would lose the benefit of the deductions claimed by him is not one of fact but one of law." 9. The facts are similar. 10. The counsel also submitted that in Appeal No. 41/PBR/85 and in Appeal No. 83/PBR/85 respectively decided on June 17, 1986 and April 30, 1986, the Tribunal in regard to the same firm, held that the purchases were made from the registered dealer and as such, the deduction of sales of such tax-paid goods was permissible. The Tribunal decided the case on January 29, 1987, i.e., after the aforesaid two decisions, but did not elect to refer the case to the President of the Board of Revenue for constituting the larger Bench in terms of rules framed under section 9 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 11. It is trite law that a Bench of equal jurisdiction differing on a particular point, is required to refer the question to a larger Bench [ AIR 1968 MP 247 (Kumari Ramlali v. Mst. Bhagunti Bai)]. 12. It is, thus, clear that both the questions as proposed are the questions of law and are required to be referred. 13. In the result, we allow this application and require the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law for our opinion. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this Court for compliance. 13. In the result, we allow this application and require the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law for our opinion. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this Court for compliance. The Tribunal is also directed to make an endeavour to comply with this order within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by it. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs. Application allowed.