JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The above two reference applications pertaining to assessment year 1994-95 have been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax (for brevity, "the Commissioner") under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for brevity, "the Bombay Act") read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the Central Act"). During the period relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the respondent was a registered dealer under the Bombay Act and the Central Act and had sold its customers certain items of iron and steel which were covered under section 5 of the Central Act and consequently were not liable to tax under section 75 of the Bombay Act. By way of above sales tax applications, the applicant wants this court to seek the statements of facts from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal with regard to following two questions of law arising in the above sales tax applications : (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the claim of Rs. 60,82,73,339 in respect of various transactions of local sale and Rs. 23,27,45,141 in respect of inter-State sale covered by bulk imports by ships and which were at an unascertained stage till the clearance from customs as sales in the course of imports by transfer of document of title to the goods within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and hence, not liable to tax under the BST Act, 1959 or CST Act, 1956 ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 particularly section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is not applicable to the transaction in dispute ? Even in the earlier Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006, the aforesaid two identical questions were raised except the amount which were different, otherwise they were identical. Mr. Jetly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - assessee pointed out that as identical questions of law were raised in Reference Application Nos. Even in the earlier Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006, the aforesaid two identical questions were raised except the amount which were different, otherwise they were identical. Mr. Jetly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - assessee pointed out that as identical questions of law were raised in Reference Application Nos. 3 of 2002 and 4 of 2002 the Tribunal had refused to refer the same to this court. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant - Commissioner of Sales Tax had filed Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006 and this court by a detailed judgment dated December 1, 2006 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [2007] 5 VST 137 (Bom)) in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, came to the following conclusion : "13. Once the Tribunal held that in the present case the sales were covered under the first limb of section 5(2) of the Central Act and, consequently exempt from payment of tax, the question as to whether the sales were exempt under the second limb of section 5(2) of the Central Act became academic. In this view of the matter, the refusal on the part of the Tribunal to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 relating to the applicability of the second limb of section 5(2) of the Central Act as well as the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act to the transactions in question cannot be faulted. Similarly, question No. 4 being consequential, the said question has not been referred. 14. However, we expressly make it clear that we have declined to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 because in the facts of the present case the said questions are academic in nature and it will be open to the department to agitate those questions in any appropriate case before the appropriate forum." Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated December 1, 2006, the applicant - Commissioner of Sales Tax had approached the honourable Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, which came to be dismissed on November 26, 2007. Mr. Sonpal, appearing on behalf of the applicant, states that by an earlier order dated December 1, 2006, this court had declined to refer question Nos. Mr. Sonpal, appearing on behalf of the applicant, states that by an earlier order dated December 1, 2006, this court had declined to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 mentioning therein, that they were academic in nature, and in an appropriate case the department could agitate these questions before an appropriate forum. When we queried Mr. Sonpal, whether or not, except for the amount involved in the above, questions of law and all other facts and circumstances are identical, Mr. Sonpal is unable to controvert the same. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the judgment of our court dated December 1, 2006 in Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006 and also in view of the fact that the honourable Supreme Court had also declined to interfere with the same, we are also inclined to hold that the decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in the present case is based on the same facts and circumstances and therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications filed by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. Hence, we dismiss both the aforesaid sales tax applications with no order as to costs.