JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior), has stated the cases and referred the undernoted common question of law under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") arising out of the order passed on March 9, 1989 in Appeal No. 287-V of 1986 and 286-V of 1988 for our opinion : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the iron and steel being entry tax paid in terms of the condition laid down against item 58 in column (4) of the Schedule to S.R.D. Notification No. A-3-18-82(13)-ST-V dated April 1, 1982 and the clarification issued by the State Government in the Margdarshika, purchase tax will be payable at the concessional rate of 2 per cent and not 3.5 per cent ?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the non-applicant/assessee is a manufacturer of machine parts and purchaser of iron and steel goods used as raw material in its hands. The iron and steel goods purchased by the assessee were assessed to entry tax at its hands. The purchase prices of such iron and steel goods are Rs. 22,291 for the period 1983-84 and Rs. 46,300 for the period 1982-83. The non-applicant paid entry tax on these materials and thus claimed to be entitled to a concessional rate of purchase tax at 2 per cent under Notification No. A-3-18-82(13)-ST-V dated April 1, 1982. The assessing officer rejected the claim and levied the purchase tax at 3.5 per cent on the ground that in order to get the benefit of concessional rate under the notification, entry tax was required to be paid before purchase of the aforesaid materials. Penalties were also levied under section 43(1) of the Act on the ground that negligence was not excusable. First appeals were allowed partly reducing the penalty. The penalty for the period 1983-84 was reduced by Rs. 300 and the penalty for the period 1982-83 was reduced by Rs. 500. The non-applicant then filed second appeals, as noted above. Penalties were also levied under section 43(1) of the Act on the ground that negligence was not excusable. First appeals were allowed partly reducing the penalty. The penalty for the period 1983-84 was reduced by Rs. 300 and the penalty for the period 1982-83 was reduced by Rs. 500. The non-applicant then filed second appeals, as noted above. The Tribunal allowed both the appeals on the question of concessional rate of purchase tax and granted relief at 1 1/2 per cent holding that the non-applicant was required to be taxed at 2 per cent instead of 3.5 per cent. The tax relief for the period 1983-84 comes to Rs. 334 and for the period 1982-83 comes to Rs. 700. The order of penalty was also set aside on the ground that there was no finding about the presence of mens rea. Thereafter the applicant/department filed applications under section 44(1) of the Act which were registered as 26-V of 1989 and 27-V of 1989. On those applications, the Tribunal stated the cases and referred the aforesaid common question of law, as noted above, for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant/department and Shri S. C. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee in both these reference applications. 4. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (1992) 9 TLD 141 (New Shakti Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, Indore v. State of M.P.) Shri Goyal submitted that the dealer enjoys exemption from payment of purchase tax if goods purchased suffered entry tax. According to him in such a case dealer becomes entitled to exemption from payment of purchase tax. In the aforesaid decision, it is held as under : "In the result, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is neither liable to pay the entry tax as per notification under section 10 (annexure 'A') nor for purchase tax as per notification under section 12 of the Sales Tax Act (annexure 'C'). Giving any other interpretation to the term 'suffered entry tax' under the Entry Tax Act would be rendering nugatory the provision of exemption under section 10 of the Entry Tax Act which is not to be done in cases of statutory notifications. Giving any other interpretation to the term 'suffered entry tax' under the Entry Tax Act would be rendering nugatory the provision of exemption under section 10 of the Entry Tax Act which is not to be done in cases of statutory notifications. We accordingly hold that the petitioner would not be liable to pay any amount either by way of entry tax or by way of purchase tax. The impugned assessment orders as contained in annexures 'D' and 'E' and the pursuant demand notices are quashed. We, however, make no order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner." 5. Shri Goyal, therefore, submitted that the question deserves to be answered in favour of the assessee. 6. On perusal of the reference, we are not satisfied that the case stated is sufficient to enable us to determine the question raised. In such situation this Court has discretion to call upon the Tribunal to make such additions or alterations therein as the court may direct in that behalf. We would have done so but we find that the amount involved is very small. In one case it is only Rs. 334 and in the other case it is only Rs. 700. In view of the small level of amount in each case, we do not find it fit to exercise the discretion to call upon the Tribunal to make additions or alterations. 7. However, as prayed we find it fit to reserve the liberty to the applicant to raise such question in identical case before the Tribunal and on unsuccess before this Court to secure proper direction to the Tribunal for answer by this Court. 8. Lord Mansfield in John Wilkes case (1770) 4 Burr 2528 stated in classic terms that discretion means sound discretion guided by law and governed by rule, not by humour. 9. As the expression used in section 44(4) is "may", we find it fit to exercise the discretion to close these cases on account of smallness of the amount. 10. In the result, we decline to answer the question and also decline to call upon the Tribunal for making any additions or alterations. 11. These reference applications thus stand disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. 12. Retain this order in Misc. 10. In the result, we decline to answer the question and also decline to call upon the Tribunal for making any additions or alterations. 11. These reference applications thus stand disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. 12. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 348 of 1991 and its copy shall be placed on the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 355 of 1991 for ready reference. Applications disposed of accordingly.