JUDGMENT This is a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer of this Court : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Board of Revenue was justified in determining the market value at Korba of bauxite raised at his own mines at Phutka Pahad and Amarkantak at Rs. 87.50 per tonne which was brought into the local area of Korba and used as raw material for its aluminium plant at Korba ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessee-M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., Korba, is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of manufacture of alumina and aluminium hydrate. Bauxite is a raw material for the manufacture of alumina from which aluminium is manufactured. The applicant has got two bauxite quarries in Madhya Pradesh, namely, Phutka Pahad and Amarkantak. The applicant had extracted 3,00,541 tonnes of bauxite from the quarries at Phutka Pahad and Amarkantak. The question before the assessing authority was that as to what should be the market value at which entry tax should be levied as the applicant had acquired bauxite by way other than that of purchase. The assessing authority had determined the market value at Rs. 115.74 per tonne and imposed entry tax at 0.5 per cent thereon. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee approached the appellate authority in appeal and in appeal, the market value was reckoned at Rs. 100 per tonne. Second appeal was preferred and the Board of Revenue determined the same at Rs. 87.50 per tonne. According to the assessee, the purchase value was Rs. 42.50 per tonne and the cost of transportation was Rs. 45 per tonne. As such the market value of the goods at Korba was Rs. 87.50 per tonne and the taxable market value at Korba in respect of bauxite extracted by the applicant at Phutka Pahad and Amarkantak was reckoned at Rs. 87.50 per tonne. The assessee thereafter approached the Board of Revenue for sending a reference before this Court and the aforesaid question was framed by the Board of Revenue and the same was sent to this Court for answer. 3. 87.50 per tonne. The assessee thereafter approached the Board of Revenue for sending a reference before this Court and the aforesaid question was framed by the Board of Revenue and the same was sent to this Court for answer. 3. We have examined the matter and find that the aforesaid question is not properly framed. As a matter of fact, the question arises in this matter is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified to determine the market value-cum-sale price at Rs. 87.50 per metric tonne by including the transportation charge in it. Similar question came up before this Court between the same parties and this Court in M.C.C. No. 463 of 1987 (Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax), decided on January 5, 1996, answered that question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by holding that the transport charge has to be excluded from the entry tax. Accordingly, the aforesaid question is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.