Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this application shall also govern disposal of I. T. R. Nos. 119 of 2000, 120 of 2000, 121 of 2000, 122 of 2000, 124 of 2000, 125 of 2000, 126 of 2000, 127 of 2000 and 148 of 2000 as in all these applications common question of law and fact involved as was seen from the order of the Tribunal out of which all these applications arise. It is for this reason, this common decision is rendered which will govern disposal of all the aforementioned cases. ( 2. ) THIS is an application made under Section 44 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, M. P. , Indore, consequent upon the dismissal of their application made under Section 44 (1) of the Act by a common order dated August 17, 1999 in Reference Nos. 990-PBR of 1999, 991-PBR of 1999, 993-PBR of 1999, 994-PBR of 1999, 995-PBR of 1999, 996-PBR of 1999, 997-PBR of 1999, 998-PBR of 1999, 999-PBR of 1999, and 1002-PBR of 1999 which in turn arise out of an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated February 2, 1999 in Appeals Nos. 2, 22, 23, 24, 57, 59, 85-I of 1997 and 7-2/s/3, 29, 255 of 1996 and 142 of 1995. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the Revenue and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the assessee. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the controversy involved in these applications, we are satisfied that the referable questions of law does arise out of the cases and hence these applications deserve to be allowed by directing the Tribunal to refer to the questions which we have formulated infra for being decided on merits under Section 44 (1) ibid. Since we are satisfied that referable questions of law do arise out of the order, we need not burden our order by narrating the facts in detail because now it is for the Tribunal to draw statement in detail with reference to the facts of each case and refer the statement by way of reference under Section 44 (2) of the Act to this Court for answering the questions formulated by this Court for answer on merits. ( 5. ( 5. ) SUFFICE it to say, the question involved in these cases is whether entry tax is leviable on the wholesale cloth dealers of Indore who imported the cloth in Indore from outside M. P. and sold it in other parts of M. P. What we noticed from the order passed by the taxing authority including the order passed by the Board in appeal is that while deciding the legal question in favour of the dealer, the Tribunal did not decide any issue on the facts and proceeded to revise the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. The Tribunal also did not take note of the facts in respect of every dealer and simply while taking note of their submissions, decided the issue in their favour by holding that they are not liable to pay any entry tax. ( 6. ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of any factual finding recorded by the Tribunal in favour of dealer on the actual sale of goods and where they were sold and whether they were actually sold, for reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Appeals, whether issue could be decided in favour of the dealer ? ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, following three substantial questions of law are formulated which in our opinion need to be referred to this Court by the Tribunal for answer on merits. (i) Whether in the absence of any factual finding recorded by the Tribunal in favour of dealer as to the actual sale of goods and where they were sold and whether they were actually sold, in M. P. , could the Tribunal reverse the decision of Commissioner of Appeal dated October 18, 1995 in favour of the dealer ? (ii) Whether in the absence of any factual discussion much less categorical finding recorded by the Board of Revenue in favour of the dealer/assessee that they had sold the goods in question outside the local area but within the State of Madhya Pradesh, whether finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that dealer is not liable to pay entry tax on the goods in question is legally sustainable ? (iii) Whether provisions of the M. P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 being in pari materia with the provisions of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act enacted in Seventh Schedule, List II, entry 52, whether interpretation placed by the Supreme Court in the case of Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal and Co. [1994] 95 STC 5 will equally apply to the provisions of the M. P. Entry Tax Act ? ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, application succeeds and is hereby allowed. Board is directed to refer the abovementioned questions by drawing detailed statement of case in each application referred supra along with annexures within a period of three months from today. No cost.