ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior) has stated these cases and referred the under-noted common questions, as extracted below, in these cases arising out of the common order dated 29th October, 1987 passed by the Tribunal in Appeals Nos. 103, 305, 306, 307 and 308-PBR/85, preferred against orders dared 11th January, 1985 and 2nd May, 1985 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commission of Sales Tax, Indore in First Appeal Cases Nos. 25 of 1982 (Central) (period 1st September, 1971 to 31st August, 1972), 100 of 1984 (Central) (period 1st September, 1975 to 31st August, 1976), 99 of 1984 (Central) (period 1st September, 1976 to 31st August, 1977), 101 of 1984 (Central) (period 1st September, 1973 to 31st August, 1974) and 18 of 1984 (Central) (period 1st September, 1974 to 31st August, 1975) respectively on applications presented by the assessee under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (State Act) and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act) and registered as references Nos. 6-I/88, 7-I/88, 8-I/88, 9-I/88 and 10-I/88, for our opinion : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty imposed on the applicant under section 22(4-A) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is proper and legal ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that even though section 22(4-A) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was not in existence on January 5, 1957, the date on which the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 came into force, the assessing authority was justified in law in levying penalty under section 22(4-A) [later on substituted by section 22(4-B) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act] read with section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?" 2. We have heard Shri S.C. Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Bagdiya, for the applicant/assessee and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate, for the non-applicant/department, in all these cases. 3. We have heard Shri S.C. Bagdiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Bagdiya, for the applicant/assessee and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate, for the non-applicant/department, in all these cases. 3. The counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the common order dated 29th October, 1987 and pointed out that the order chronicles grounds of the appeals which are five in number, and thereafter in para 2 the order contains the reply of the non-applicant which again is in para 5. Thereafter the Tribunal has disposed of these appeals vide para 3 in the under-noted terms : "After having heard learned counsels on both the sides I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent on all the five grounds. The penalty under section 22(4-A) of the State Act is basically for realising from the dealer the wrongful gain which he made by withholding the tax due. It is approximately equal to the commercial cost of borrowing money. There is hardly any punitive ingredient in such a penalty and I find absolutely no reason why the dealer should not make good to the State the loss which he wrongfully causes by withholding the tax due and payable. Any contention to the contrary is not only untenable in view of the provisions of section 22(4-A) of the State Act but also on considerations of equity. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed." 4. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded its own consideration and opinion on the points referred to this Court. According to him the Tribunal was under obligation to express its opinion before considering the question of statement of cases and reference of common questions. 5. He has also drawn our attention to para 5 in the nature of reply by the non-applicant : "As the appellant has himself said that an application for rectification before the first appellate court is pending, it would be premature for this Court to go into the matter." 6. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant/assessee elects to initiate appropriate proceeding before the Tribunal and does not seek answer from this Court at this stage. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant/assessee elects to initiate appropriate proceeding before the Tribunal and does not seek answer from this Court at this stage. To summarise, the counsel for the applicant submits as under : (a) The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion with regard to the points referred to this Court and the order out of which the questions have arisen is totally silent as to the five points raised in the appeals before the Tribunal. (b) The non-applicant contended that it was premature for the Tribunal to go into the matter as the application for rectification before the first appellate authority was pending. (c) The applicant-assessee elects not to press for answers to these two questions, as noted above, and elects to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for review or any other appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law together with an application for condonation of delay in view of the pendency of these cases in this Court. 7. The counsel for the non-applicant submitted that these references are made at the instance of the assessee and if the assessee does not press these references in this Court, this Court is not required to answer the questions. He also submitted that if the applicant files an application for review or for any other remedy before the Tribunal, the non-applicant should be granted liberty to contest the same in conformity with law. 8. In (1993) MPLJ 462 (Jamunadas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) it is held that the Court is not under obligation to answer the questions if the party at whose instance references are made does not enable the hearing of the references. This logic is extendable also to a position where the applicant chooses to remain present but elects not to press the references on any sufficient ground. 9. In view of the prayer made before us and in view of the point stated in para 5, as noted above, we decline to answer the questions and dispose of these miscellaneous civil cases without recording our opinion. 9. In view of the prayer made before us and in view of the point stated in para 5, as noted above, we decline to answer the questions and dispose of these miscellaneous civil cases without recording our opinion. However, the applicant shall have the freedom to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal on the ground of mistake or error or on the ground of any other sufficient reason for review or other appropriate remedy together with an application seeking condonation of delay on sufficient ground in respect of the questions projected in these miscellaneous civil cases and with reference to the common order dated 29th October, 1987 passed in the aforesaid five appeals. If such applications are presented, the Tribunal shall be free to decided the same in conformity with law without in any way being tied down by the liberty reserved in this order. The non-applicant shall have freedom to contest the matter. 10. These miscellaneous civil cases are thus disposed of in terms indicated above but with no orders as to costs. 11. Transit a copy of this order to the Tribunal. Misc. Civil Case No. 226 of 1994 : 12. Retain this order in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 226 of 1994 and place its copy each in the records of the connected miscellaneous civil cases as particularised above for ready reference. Reference not answered.