JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a reference under section 44 of the m. P. General Sales Tax Act. The assessee in this case filed a certificate in c form but in that certificate the registration number of the purchasing dealer was not mentioned. The certificate was, therefore, not taken into consideration. However, the assessee wanted an opportunity either to correct the certificate or to file a duplicate indicating the registration number of the purchasing dealer. This opportunity was not allowed and the question referred to this Court is : whether the assessing authority is required to give an opportunity to the dealer to explain errors or omissions noticed by the assessing authority in declarations in Form c prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting them as invalid ?" ( 2. ) THIS Court has held in M/s K. S. Nazar Ali Mills v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. (1972 MPLJ Note No. 121 = (Misc. Civil Case No. 175 of 1970 decided on 27th August, 1971)), that even if certificates in c form are not filed at the time of assessment but subsequently the assessee offers to file the certificates, the assessing authorities have power even at a subsequent stage to consider the material produced by the assessee and if they are satisfied that proper certificates had been issued at the time of the transactions, such certificates could be accepted at later stages. If that could be done, there is no difficulty in the present case in having the certificate corrected in case some clerical mistake is discovered in the certificate and the assessing authorities are satisfied that proper certificate had been issued by the dealer who purchased the articles from the assessee. ( 3. ) IN this case it is pointed out that the only mistake was that the registration number of the purchasing dealer was not mentioned. It was also pointed out that the registration certificate number of the same dealer was mentioned in the certificates produced in the previous year. The assessee was prepared to satisfy the Department that the purchasing dealer was a registered dealer andnd it was a mere clerical mistake not to mention the number of his registration certificate. It was also pointed out that the registration certificate number of the same dealer was mentioned in the certificates produced in the previous year. The assessee was prepared to satisfy the Department that the purchasing dealer was a registered dealer andnd it was a mere clerical mistake not to mention the number of his registration certificate. We see no reason why in such a case the taxing authorities should not permit either amendment of the c form if satisfied of the facts, or the filing of a duplicate c form properly filled. ( 4. ) OUR answer to the question referred, therefore, is that the assessing authority ought to give an opportunity to the dealer to explain errors or omissions noticed by the assessing authority in declarations in Form c prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting them as invalid, if the assessing authority is satisfied that the mistake was merely a clerical mistake or an inadvertent omission and that a correct certificate could be issued by the purchasing dealer at the time of the transaction. ( 5. ) THE assessee will get its costs in this Court, Counsels fee is fixed at Rs. 100. Reference answered in favour of assessee.