ORDER 1. Board of Revenue has referred the following two questions, stated to be questions of law arising out of its order dated 19th July, 1996 for opinion of this Court : "(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold as thinner of paints, etc., sold by the appellant should be exigible to tax at 12 per cent under residuary entry No. 1, Part VI, Schedule II instead of being assessed at 16 per cent under entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II ? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty under Section 17(3) ?" 2. It appears that assessee, a dealer in paints and chemicals, claimed to be an unregistered dealer from April 1, 1989 to August 25, 1989 and paid tax at 12 per cent for sale of "thinner". This was, however, reversed by the assessing authority imposing sales tax at 16 per cent by falling back upon entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. A penalty of Rs. 19,831 was also imposed, for filing of late return by the assessee. 3. An appeal was taken against this by the assessee who claimed that he had imported and sold chemical which could be used as a thinner and which was taxable at 12 per cent. He failed and took further appeal to the Board of Revenue and succeeded there. The Board found that the assessee had sold mineral turpentine oil which was distinct from turpentine oil and was not covered by entry No. 20, Part II, Schedule II and would fall in residuary entry as per the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India [1981] 48 STC 54 (MP) ; [1981] 14 VKN 373. 4. Revenue sought reference of the aforesaid two questions and that is how the Board has forwarded this case to this Court. 5. Considering that Board of Revenue had found it as a fact that assessee had sold mineral turpentine oil which was already held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. 5. Considering that Board of Revenue had found it as a fact that assessee had sold mineral turpentine oil which was already held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India [1981] 48 STC 54 ; [1981] 14 VKN 373 distinct and different from the turpentine oil falling in residuary entry, therefore, there was no need for referring the stated questions for the opinion of this Court as no referable question arose in the matter. It is well-settled that question covered by judgment of jurisdictional court ceases to be question of law under Section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and warrants no reference to this Court. 6. This reference is accordingly answered in affirmative as Board was justified in holding that the mineral turpentine oil sold by the assessee as thinner was exigible to the tax at 12 per cent under the residuary entry 1 of Schedule II, Part VI of the Act. Same holds true about the levy of penalty which is rooted in appreciation of facts and does not give rise to any question of law.