JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, Gwalior) has referred the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the hose pipes and PVC pipes amounting to Rs. 1,58,000 sold by the assessee were not accessories of pump sets and therefore they were not covered by Notification No. A-3-1-V/76(b) dated November 18, 1976, but were covered by entry 22 of Part II of Schedule IV to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and as such were rightly assessed to turnover tax at 2.5 per cent ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant-assessee carries on the business of pump sets, hose pipes, PVC pipes, machinery and their parts and accessories as also other goods. It is a dealer registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and holds registration certificate No. RTM/R/51. For the period October 24, 1976 to November 11, 1977, the dealer was assessed to sales tax and turnover tax under sections 6 and 7-B of the Act respectively by the Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam, by order dated January 12, 1981 (annexure "B"). The case reference is 3/77-78. The assessing authority determined the gross turnover at Rs. 22,00,000 and taxable turnover at Rs. 12,50,869 on which he assessed a total tax of Rs. 87,710.60 under section 6 of the Act, on calculation at different rates as applicable. The assessing authority also determined taxable turnover at Rs. 6,38,623 for the period October 26, 1976 to April 30, 1977 and levied turnover tax of Rs. 6,549.79 after calculation at different rates. Out of the turnover of Rs. 6,38,623, the assessing authority determined the turnover of Rs. 1,50,000 relating to the sale of hose pipes and PVC pipes and levied turnover tax at 2.5 per cent under entry 22 of Part II of Schedule IV of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of this case. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated November 12, 1981 (annexure "B"), the assessee filed first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, who by order dated July 28, 1984 dismissed the appeal (annexure "C"). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated November 12, 1981 (annexure "B"), the assessee filed first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ratlam, who by order dated July 28, 1984 dismissed the appeal (annexure "C"). The appeal was registered as No. 11/82. The assessee thereafter preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, which was registered as Appeal No. 192-IV/84. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 24, 1984 (annexure "D"). The assessee then filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act. This application was registered as R.A. No. 13-IV/85. The Tribunal on this application stated the case and referred the aforesaid question for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri Pancholiya, for the applicant-assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the non-applicant/department. 4. In the statement of the case, the Tribunal noted as under : "However, the Tribunal rejected the second appeal of the dealer holding that so far as hose pipes are concerned they could be treated as accessories of pump sets, but a firm decision was not pronounced by the Tribunal in this regard. As regards the PVC pipes, the Tribunal held that as these could be used for any other purposes also, and since the turnover of sales of PVC pipes was appreciably about 2 1/2 times more than the cost of the original machines, viz., pump sets, as such they could not be treated as accessories of pump sets." 5. It is indeed strange that the firm decision was not pronounced by the Tribunal in regard to hose pipes and yet the prayer was accepted and question was referred. It is also strange that the Tribunal observed that "so far as hose pipes are concerned, they could be treated as accessories of pump sets" yet no relief was given to the assessee in regard to hose pipes. 6. Under section 44(1) of the aforesaid Act, the party concerned can request the Tribunal to refer to this Court any question of law arising out of such order. 7. It is thus luculent that the question must arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the instant case the Tribunal declined to pronounce any decision so far as the hose pipes were concerned. That being so, part of the question at least cannot be said to arise out of the order. 8. 7. It is thus luculent that the question must arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the instant case the Tribunal declined to pronounce any decision so far as the hose pipes were concerned. That being so, part of the question at least cannot be said to arise out of the order. 8. In these circumstances we are not satisfied that the case stated is sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised. We find it fit to invoke section 44(4) to call upon the Tribunal to make appropriate additions or alterations in the question referred to for our opinion. 9. The Tribunal may decide the question in regard to hose pipes one way or the other and then refer the question with regard to hose pipes if found necessary and may re-shape the question by appropriate additions/alterations in the statement of the case as well as in question. 10. Accordingly we return this reference without answering the question and call upon the Tribunal to make appropriate additions/alterations so far as the question of hose pipes are concerned. 11. The Tribunal is directed to comply with the directions within six months from the date of the receipt of the order. 12. This reference application stands disposed of in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. 13. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750 if certified. 14. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal in accordance with the law.