ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 294 of 1984 on July 3, 1986 (reported as Bansilal Baboolal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] 66 STC 142), presented under section 44(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") read with section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, "the Entry Tax Act"), by the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior) has stated the case and referred the undernoted common question of law in both these reference applications : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in maintaining the penalty only on the basis of findings in assessment proceedings without taking separate proceedings for penalty and discharging the burden of proof which lay on the department ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is a registered dealer dealing in cigarettes and bidies. The returns were filed. The department came to know from different sources that the assessee used to make benami imports in the name of various persons. On the linchpin of such knowledge, the matter was enquired into and it was found that 489 cartons valued at Rs. 4,89,000 were imported by the assessee in the fictitious names of various persons and this transaction remained unaccounted for. The conclusion of the assessing officer in regard to fictitious transactions rested on written statements of several individuals recorded in the course of enquiry. The assessee was noticed. The assessee, however, failed to appeal before the assessing officer. Eventually a show cause notice was issued. The assessee then filed a written reply. The assessing officer passed the assessment orders against the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeals which were rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. First appeals against the penalty under section 43(1) of the Act were also rejected. This led to filing of the second appeals which were registered as 53-IV/83 and 54-IV/83. The assessee had contended before the Tribunal that for imposition of penalty, separate proceedings were required to be drawn. The Tribunal, however, found that the department discharged its duty and the assessee was properly heard. The appeals were dismissed by common order dated July 2, 1983 (annexure "7"). The assessee had contended before the Tribunal that for imposition of penalty, separate proceedings were required to be drawn. The Tribunal, however, found that the department discharged its duty and the assessee was properly heard. The appeals were dismissed by common order dated July 2, 1983 (annexure "7"). The assessee then filed reference application, which were rejected. It then filed Misc. Civil Case No. 294 of 1984 and Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984 in this Court. This Court then directed the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the questions as indicated in the common order dated July 3, 1986. In compliance with the directions, the Tribunal stated that case and referred the question as directed with regard to Misc. Civil Case No. 294 of 1984 but inadvertently omitted to state the case and refer the two questions of law as directed with regard to Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984. 3. The common order passed in the aforesaid two Misc. Civil Cases is reported in [1987] 66 STC 142 (MP); (1986) 19 VKN 340 (Bansilal Baboolal, Neemuch v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh). In Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984, this Court formulated the undernoted question of law : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessing authority was not bound to afford to the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as the same was not asked for by the petitioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding in regard to the alleged transactions is vitiated in law ?" 4. In Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 294 of 1984, this Court indicated the undernoted question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in maintaining the penalty only on the basis of findings in assessment proceedings without taking separate proceedings for penalty and discharging the burden of proof which lay on the department ?" 5. However, in both the aforesaid reference applications, pertaining to second appeal cases Nos. 53-IV/83 and 54-IV/83, the Tribunal referred the only question of law, as extracted above. 6. We have heard Shri M. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department, in both these cases. 7. However, in both the aforesaid reference applications, pertaining to second appeal cases Nos. 53-IV/83 and 54-IV/83, the Tribunal referred the only question of law, as extracted above. 6. We have heard Shri M. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant/assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the non-applicant/department, in both these cases. 7. Right at the threshold Shri Choudhary drew our attention to the error manifestly crept in the statement of case and reference. According to him the Tribunal has failed to refer the questions of law as proposed by this Court with regard to Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984. 8. The aforesaid error is visible and is required to be remedied. 9. Section 44(3) of the Act provides as under : "44. Statement of case to High Court. - (1) ........... (2) ................... (3) If upon the receipt of an application under clause (b) of sub-section (2) the High Court is not satisfied, that the refusal was justified, it may require the Tribunal to state the case and refer it, and on receipt of such requisition, the Tribunal shall act accordingly." 10. Luculently the Tribunal has not acted as directed by this Court and we can assume that this situation is the product of oversight. In terms of section 44(4) of the Act, we are satisfied that the case stated is not sufficient to enable us to determine the question as referred. We, therefore, call upon the Tribunal to make appropriate additions and alterations in terms of the order passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984 as well. 11. We, therefore, do not deem it proper to consider and answer the lone question as referred but call upon the Tribunal to state the additional case and refer the two questions also as noted above. 12. These two reference applications are thus disposed of with the directions as above. 13. The Tribunal shall comply with the directions issued by this Court in common order dated July 3, 1986, passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984 and Misc. Civil Case No. 294 of 1984 fully. As the matter is old, we also direct the Tribunal to comply with this order within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. 14. We make no order as to costs. 15. Civil Case No. 288 of 1984 and Misc. Civil Case No. 294 of 1984 fully. As the matter is old, we also direct the Tribunal to comply with this order within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. 14. We make no order as to costs. 15. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal immediately for compliance as directed above. 16. Retain this order in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 71 of 1989 and place its copy in the connected miscellaneous civil case for ready reference. Applications disposed of accordingly.