JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The applicant-assessee has filed this application under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the proposed question of law, as extracted below, arising out of the order dated September 6, 1990, passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 253/III/86 (State) for the period from December 1, 1982 to November 30, 1983, for our opinion : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is Justified in not holding that the order under section 42B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax determining 'Protinex' manufactured and sold by the petitioner as drug/medicine falling under entry No. 16 of Part IV of Schedule II of the said Act is binding on assessing authority ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has branches and/or deposits all over India, one such branch/depot being at Indore. The company during the relevant period carried on the business of drugs and medicines. It manufactured drugs and medicines at its factory at Thane (Bombay) and has no manufacturing activity in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The assessment for the aforesaid period was completed by the assessing authority. On November 21, 1985, the assessing authority levied the tax at the rate of 12 per cent on the sale of Protinex manufactured and sold by the applicant on the ground that the said Protinex is a food and applicant as such is not entitled to concessional rate of tax as drug or medicine. The assessing authority thus raised an additional demand of Rs. 1,46,906 (annexure "A"). The applicant preferred the first appeal No. 23/86/State. The appellate authority maintained the order of the assessing authority (annexure "B"). The applicant then filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was registered as 253-III/86. It was disposed of on September 6, 1990. The Tribunal held that Protinex was a food supplement and was liable to tax at higher rate of 12 per cent. The applicant maintained that the Protinex was manufactured under the drug licence only as drug and as such was entitled to the benefit of concessional rate. It was disposed of on September 6, 1990. The Tribunal held that Protinex was a food supplement and was liable to tax at higher rate of 12 per cent. The applicant maintained that the Protinex was manufactured under the drug licence only as drug and as such was entitled to the benefit of concessional rate. The applicant maintained that the order of the Commissioner under section 42-B of the Act was binding on all the subordinates of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the applicant filed application under section 44(1) of the Act and proposed two questions of law. One of such questions is as noted above. The Tribunal accepted the application in part and stated the case and referred only question No. 2 and declined to refer the question No. 1, as noted above. The applicant has thus filed this application under section 44(2) of the Act for direction to state the aforesaid question as well. 3. 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. 4. Section 42-B of the 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." 5. It can at once be noticed that an order passed under the aforesaid section is made binding on the authorities referred to in section 3 in all proceedings under the Act except appeals. The question sought to be referred is whether such an order is binding on the assessing authority ? That seems to be the intention of the section 42-B of the Act. In case of circulars, etc., it is held in [1993] 90 STC 47 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 2414 (Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer) that such circulars may not be binding on quasi-judicial authorities. 6. That seems to be the intention of the section 42-B of the Act. In case of circulars, etc., it is held in [1993] 90 STC 47 (SC); AIR 1993 SC 2414 (Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer) that such circulars may not be binding on quasi-judicial authorities. 6. In view of the section 42-B and the aforesaid decision, we find that the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and is thus required to be referred for our opinion. 7. Ex consequenti, we allow this application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the remaining question of law, as noted above, for our opinion within a period of nine months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The application is thus allowed but with no order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal immediately for compliance, as directed. Application allowed.