ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant/assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior) has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") arising out from an order dated August 16, 1989 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 198-PBR/87 for our opinion : "Whether voltage stabilizers are taxable as accessories of goods with which they are to be used, i.e., at 13.5 per cent and not as electric goods under entry 15 of Schedule II of Part III of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act at 10 per cent ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant was assessed to tax on sale of voltage stabilizers in the Case No. 158/83 (State) for the calendar year 1983 at 13.5 per cent by the assessing officer. The applicant appealed against this order contending that since voltage stabilizers are not mentioned under any specific entry in Part II of Schedule II of the Act, the same are required to be treated as residual item and taxed at 10 per cent as per Part VI of Schedule II to the Act. The appeal was rejected holding that voltage stabilizers were accessories to electric and electronic equipments and are accordingly liable to tax at 13.5 per cent in conformity with entries 4 and 5 of Part II of Schedule II of the Act. The applicant contented that voltage stabilizers were "electric goods" as per entry 15 of Part III of Schedule II of the Act and as such were liable to tax at 10 per cent. The Tribunal found that applicant adduced no evidence to prove that it sold voltage stabilizers to dealers of other items which bear a lower incidence of tax. It was, therefore, held that the assessing authority was justified in levying tax at 13.5 per cent in terms of entry 4 of Part II of Schedule II of the Act. The applicant felt dissatisfied by the order and filed application No. 10-PBR of 1990 seeking statement of the case and reference of the question. On this application, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question for our opinion. 3. None appeared for the applicant/assessee. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate appeared for the non-applicant/department. He was heard. 4. The applicant felt dissatisfied by the order and filed application No. 10-PBR of 1990 seeking statement of the case and reference of the question. On this application, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question for our opinion. 3. None appeared for the applicant/assessee. Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate appeared for the non-applicant/department. He was heard. 4. It is held in [1972] 30 STC 337 (MP) (J.B. Advani-Oerlikon Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.) that two things are necessary to name an article as "electrical goods". (1) Its use cannot be had without electrical energy; (2) by its very nature it should answer the description of electrical goods. 5. The assessee has, however, not elected to appear and thus has not enabled us to consider the reference and answer the question in conformity with law. 6. As held in (1993) MPLJ 462 (Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) and the common order passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1986 (B. R. Phosphate, Meghnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) and Misc. Civil Case No. 304 of 1986 (M/s. B.R. Phosphate, Meghnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) by this court on November 6, 1995 this Court is not bound to answer the reference. In (1993) MPLJ 462 (Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) it is held as under : "For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper-books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this Court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the department quantified at Rs. 150." 7. As the assessee has not appeared and has also not taken the appropriate steps, we dismiss this reference in default with no order as to costs. 8. The Tribunal be informed accordingly. Application dismissed.