JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, 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 refer the undernoted question of law for our opinion : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was right in holding that provisions of rule 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 are no bar for the operation of section 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for levy of purchase tax at concessional rates ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The non-applicant assessee is a dealer registered under the Act. It carries on the business of hot dip galvanizing on job contract basis. During the course of business, the non-applicant assessee entered into job-work agreement whereby it undertook to galvanize materials belonging to other parties on contract basis. It neither purchased the goods nor sold them. It only received galvanizing charges (annexure R-1). For the assessment period October 28, 1979 to October 27, 1980 (under the Act as also under Entry Tax Act), the assessment orders were passed on June 27, 1983. It was given the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the raw material. Later, the assessment was reopened under section 19(1) of the Act. After hearing, reassessment orders were passed. The non-applicant was not found to be the manufacturer. It was, therefore, subjected to pay full rate of tax under the Act. During the assessment proceedings in 1981-82 and 1982-83, it was assessed to full tax (annexures R-II A, R-II D). The non-applicant filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax registered as Nos. 355/86 (Provincial), 114/86 (Entry Tax), 66/85 (Entry Tax) and 13/86 (Provincial). The appeals were rejected. The non-applicant then filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals registered as 58-III/87, 57-III/87, 103-III/87 and 217-III/87 by common order dated June 19, 1989 (annexure R-IV). The Tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the assessing officer for fresh assessment. The Tribunal held that the raw material and the incidental goods consumed by the non-applicant for galvanizing nuts and bolts should be assessed at concessional rates. The Tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the case to the assessing officer for fresh assessment. The Tribunal held that the raw material and the incidental goods consumed by the non-applicant for galvanizing nuts and bolts should be assessed at concessional rates. The Tribunal held that rule 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 is no bar for operation of section 7(2) of the Act for the purpose of levy of purchase tax at the concessional rate. Aggrieved, the applicant filed applications under section 44(1) of the Act which were rejected by the Tribunal. The applicant then filed this application under section 44(2) of the Act. 3. We have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant and Shri S. R. Kochatta, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 4. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in the undernoted terms : "In view of the foregoing discussions, all the appeals are allowed. The cases are hereby remanded to the assessing officer for making fresh assessment. The raw material and incidental goods consumed by the appellant for manufacture of zinc coated nuts and bolts should be assessed at concessional rates applicable under the Act or Entry Tax Act, as the case may be. The orders of the lower authorities are hereby set aside." The Reference Application registered as 10-PBR of 1989, 11-PBR of 1989, 12-PBR of 1989 and 13-PBR of 1989 against the order dated June 19, 1983 passed by the Tribunal in Case Nos. 58-III of 1987, 57-III of 1987, 103-III of 1987 and 217-III of 1987 proposing the same questions were rejected by the Tribunal on the undernoted conclusions : "It is a fact that the Legislature is the supreme law-making body that the Act is enacted by the Legislature that by section 51 of the Act the Legislature has given certain powers to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act : that it is in exercise of this delegated legislation under section 51 of the Act that the State Government has framed the rules, in which rule 20-B is a part. Therefore, rules are meant only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rules are, therefore, subordinate to the Act. It is an accepted principle of law that the rules cannot go against the provisions of the Act. Therefore, rules are meant only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rules are, therefore, subordinate to the Act. It is an accepted principle of law that the rules cannot go against the provisions of the Act. If the rules go against the provisions of the Act, such rules will no longer be for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In such a situation the provisions of the rules will be liable to be declared ultra vires in appropriate proceedings. Where it is not an appropriate proceedings such rules are held to be not mandatory. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Prahalad Das Ramdas [1983] 52 STC 224 (MP) is a case in point wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that furnishing of declaration in form C as laid down in rule 8-D of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957 is not necessary for claiming exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The proposed question and the contentions of the learned counsel for the department being against accepted legal principle, to make a reference to the honourable High Court is not necessary." 5. The counsel for the applicant was unable to show any invalidity or infirmity in the approach or in the eventual conclusion. The rules are meant only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. No rule can control the section of the Act. The provision contained in the Act is to be given full play and the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be regulated on the basis of the relevant provisions. So viewed, we find that the Tribunal committed no error of law in taking the view that it took. 6. Accordingly, we find that there is no referable question of law for making the direction to the Tribunal to state the case. We, therefore, hold that this application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. We do so, but leave the parties to bear their own costs of this application as incurred. Application dismissed.