JUDGMENT R. S. MOHITE, J. - This is an application preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax ("the applicant") against Gharda Chemicals Ltd. ("the respondent"). The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 15, 2005 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in Reference Application No. 131 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order the Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for referring the questions as framed by the applicant in his reference application for answer by this court. The brief facts of the case are as under : (a) The respondent filed its return before the sales tax authorities for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994. The return filed for the aforesaid period was a nil return and there was no claim for refund in the return as filed. (b) The return came to be assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Adm) (M-85) Ratnagiri. Below the assessment order, the date of making of the assessment order was typed as March 31, 1997. On the right hand column, below the order, was the signature of the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner with no date thereunder. On the left hand side yet another date was shown as April 10, 1997 without any signature. The assessing officer, after assessment on merits, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was entitled to a refund of Rs. 79,00,000. On September 22, 1997 the revisional authority, being Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State issued a suo motu show cause notice calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the assessment order should not be revised. After hearing the respondent, ultimately by an order dated January 16, 1998 the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur allowed the revision. He observed that main issue involved was as to whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction as it was time barred. He decided this issue against the respondent. He also observed that the other claims were also not correctly allowed and the admissible sales were not properly determined. He therefore, set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to take action according to law. (c) Being aggrieved by this order dated January 16, 1998 the respondent preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal being Appeal No. 18 of 1998. He therefore, set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to take action according to law. (c) Being aggrieved by this order dated January 16, 1998 the respondent preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal being Appeal No. 18 of 1998. This appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal by their judgment and order dated June 13, 2003. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on March 31, 1997 and it would have to be presumed that the assessment order was not passed on April 10, 1997. It further held that the assessment order was thus passed within the period of limitation. It directed the assessing officer to grant refund to the appellant expeditiously with interest under section 43A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It also directed the assessing officer to pay the costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent. (d) That thereafter, the applicant preferred an application before the Tribunal for referring the two questions of law as stated in the application. This application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated October 15, 2005. In these circumstances, the present application came to be filed in this court by the applicant. The present application came to be admitted by this court on June 30, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to change the facts regarding the date of passing assessment order from April 10, 1997 to March 31, 1997 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in granting interest under section 43A of the BST Act, 1959 even when the said section was incorporated with effect from April 1, 1995 and was not operating during the assessment period 1993-94 ? We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The Advocate for the respondent fairly states that the applicant would not press for interest on amount of refund under section 43A as the provision relating to the same was enacted with effect from October 1, 1995 and would not be applicable to the assessment year in question. In view of this concession the second question as framed by this court is answered in favour of the Revenue. In view of this concession the second question as framed by this court is answered in favour of the Revenue. As far as the first question is concerned, as observed hereinabove, there are two dates just below the body of the assessment order. A date March 31, 1997 is typed. The signature of the assessing officer does not contain any date thereunder. Yet, another date is shown as April 10, 1997 on the left hand side below the judgment but there is no signature therein above. In this regard the Tribunal has concluded that the assessing officer must have known that the period of limitation would expire on March 31, 1997 and therefore, he passed his order before that date. It is further concluded that the date April 10, 1997 was probably made to defeat the refund claim. In our view, only a disputed question of fact and no question of law arises in this case. The second date April 10, 1997 as shown below the judgment is not below the signature of the assessing officer. There is no date below the signature of the assessing officer. On facts, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and therefore, in our view, the first substantial question of law as framed does not arise. Before parting with the matter, we would like to observe that an attempt appears to have been made by the assessing officer to deprive the assessee of the benefit of a refund. He must have had knowledge of the fact that if his order was made after March 31, 1997, the effect would be to render the assessment order as one without jurisdiction since by virtue of operation of section 33(4A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act the nil return filed by the respondent would be deemed to be accepted. Prima facie, this appears to have been done to deprive the respondent from claiming the refund as assessed. This is a very serious matter and therefore, we direct the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take steps to fix the responsibility and initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officer. He is further directed to file a report in this regards in respect of the steps taken within a period of six months from today. He is further directed to file a report in this regards in respect of the steps taken within a period of six months from today. Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State. In the light of above discussion, the reference application is answered and stands disposed of accordingly.