ORDER This is an application made by the State under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed) consequent upon dismissal of their application made under section 44(1) ibid by order dated December 21, 1999 in Ref. Case No. 36-1/95 which in turn arose out of an order passed in Appeal No. 83/PBR/91 dated March 29, 1996 passed by the Tribunal. By this application, the applicant - State has prayed for the following two questions which according to them are referable to this court and do arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal in aforementioned appeal. According to the applicant these questions ought to have been referred to this court for being answered under section 44(1) of the Act. Since their application for making a reference to this court was rejected by the Tribunal they made this application under section 44(2) ibid praying for calling the following two questions of law which according to them do arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal and being referable ones have to be called for answer. (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to hold the validity of eligibility certificate issued by District Industry, Dewas, would be effective from the date of first purchase, i.e., June 8, 1986 instead of May 1, 1987, i.e., from the validity date of registration certificate issued under MPGST Act, which is a mandatory requirement of notification No. 422-6596/V-ST, dated February 9, 1977 relating to the issuance of eligibility certificate ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law to hold that plant and machinery and building material purchased after the commencement of business are not "incidental goods" as defined under section 2(bb) of the Entry Tax Act and hence not liable to entry tax under section 3(1)(b) of the said Act ? Heard Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State and Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia, learned counsel for respondent - assessee. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed in part. Heard Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State and Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia, learned counsel for respondent - assessee. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed in part. In other words, we are of the opinion that question No. 1 referred supra is a referable question of law to this court for being answered by this court under section 44(1) ibid. So far as the question No. 2 is concerned, both the counsel appearing for parties submitted that this question is already answered by this court in the decisions reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Vippy Solvex Products Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 105 STC 394 and National Fertilisers Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1997] 106 STC 93. Under these circumstances it is not necessary to call for question No. 2 because it is neither referable nor is it a question which needs to be answered by this court as a question of law. Indeed, once it stands answered on merits by this court, it ceases to be a referable question of law. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, this application succeeds in part. The Tribunal is directed to send a reference under section 44(1) to this court only on question No. 1 referred supra. Let the statement of case be drawn within a period of three months from today by the Tribunal along with all annexures necessary for answering question No. 1. No cost.