JUDGMENT : VIJAYVARGIYA, J. By this reference under section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court : " (1) Whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the acceptance by the assessing authority of an additional evidence which had the effect of removing the defect of non-mention of the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealers was proper and justified or whether such acceptance was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not legally permissible for the Commissioner of Sales Tax to accept the additional evidence produced before him for removing the defects in the said C forms ?" 2. The facts giving rise to this reference as set out in the statement of the case are as follows : The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foreign liquors. For the period 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by order dated 23rd November, 1964. It appears that the assessing officer rejected the declarations in certain C forms because they did not contain the number and the date of registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the A. A. C.) of Sales Tax set aside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity was given to the assessee by the assessing officer to rectify the technical mistakes and therefore remanded the case for fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistakes. After remand the assessee filed letters from the respective purchasing dealers in which the date from which their registration certificate was valid was mentioned. The assessing officer accepted this evidence and treating the defects as cured, accepted the C forms and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. After remand the assessee filed letters from the respective purchasing dealers in which the date from which their registration certificate was valid was mentioned. The assessing officer accepted this evidence and treating the defects as cured, accepted the C forms and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. The Commissioner of Sales Tax ordered issuance of notice under section 39 (2) of the Act to the assessee for revising the order of assessment on the ground that once a C form was filed before the assessing authority its validity or otherwise would depend entirely on the manner in which it complied with the provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to as the Central Act), and the Rules made thereunder. The assessing authority had neither any power to call for any fresh evidence nor to entertain any corroborative evidence in respect of the declarations. According to the Commissioner of Sales Tax the declarations should, therefore, have been rejected. According to the Commissioner of Sales Tax the order of the assessing authority was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. After hearing the parties the Commissioner passed an order rejecting the C forms and assessing tax in respect of the amounts covered by the said C forms at the full rate. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue which was allowed. At the instance of the department the Board of Revenue has referred the questions of law for the opinion of this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the department contended that as the assessee had failed to fulfil the requirement of sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Central Act and the declaration forms filed by him were not duly and correctly filed in, the assessee was not entitled to have his sales assessed at a concessional rate and no evidence could be allowed to be produced to remove the defects in the forms and the A. A. C. of Sales Tax was not justified in setting aside the original order of assessment and in remanding the case for fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistakes and the assessing officer was not justified in allowing the assessee to lead evidence and to rectify any mistake in the C form and in assessing the sales at concessional rate. The Commissioner was, therefore, fully justified in revising the assessment order and the Board of Revenue committed an error of law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. He placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain ([1978] 41 S. T. C. 484; (1977) 10 V. K. N. 59. ). In that case the Sales Tax Officer had rejected certain C forms. The A. A. C. accepted some of them. As regards three forms which did not contain the date of registration of the purchasing dealer, a certificate issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Orai, was filed in which the date of registration of the purchasing dealer was mentioned. The A. A. C. of Sales Tax rejected the evidence by holding that apart from the C forms that had been filed no further evidence could be considered to make good the deficiency in the C forms that were filed by the assessee. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee in that case and remanded the case to the assessing authority for accepting the said C forms as filled on the basis of the letter issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Orai, and to make assessment accordingly. On these facts this Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that regarding the date of registration which was not mentioned in the three C forms originally produced, evidence should have been accepted in the reassessment proceedings. This decision certainly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the department. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Dayaram Balchand, Hira Mill Road, Ujjain ([1973] 31 S. T. C. 249.), Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Uttam Timber Mart, Balod ([1978] 11 V. K. N. 180.), Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Badri Lal Hanumanprasad ([1979] 44 S. T. C. 479; (1979) 12 V. K. N. 1.) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sardar House, Andherdeo, Jabalpur ([1969] 23 S. T. C. 276; 1971 M. P. L. J. 712. ). ). In these decisions which are also by the Division Benches of this Court it has been held that evidence can be given to rectify omissions such as the date and number of the registration certificate, etc. , in the declarations in form C filed by the assessee. 5. As there is an apparent conflict between the view taken in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain ([1978] 41 S. T. C. 484; (1977) 10 V. K. N. 59.), on the one hand and the decisions in the cases referred to above and relied upon by the assessee on the other and as, in our opinion, it is not possible to give an opinion in the present case without resolving the said conflict, we are of the opinion that this case should be referred to a larger Bench of this Court so that a proper opinion be given in this case after resolving the conflict in the different Division Bench decisions of this Court referred to above. 6. We, therefore, direct that the record of this case be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench for giving an opinion in this case. [in pursuance of the aforesaid order of reference the case came on for hearing before the Full Bench. ] The Government Advocate, for the applicant. M. M. Sapre and V. M. Rege, for the opposite party. JUDGMENt The judgment of the Court was delivered by SOHANI, J.- By this reference under section 44 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its opinion : " (1) Whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the acceptance by the assessing authority of an additional evidence which had the effect of removing the defect of non-mention of the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealers was proper and justified or whether such acceptance was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not legally permissible for the Commissioner of Sales Tax to accept the additional evidence produced before him for removing the defects in the said C forms ?" 2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, as set out in the statement of the case, briefly are as follows : The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foreign liquors. For the period 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, the assessee was assessed to sales tax by order dated 23rd November, 1964, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Indore. Though this order did not make a specific mention of the facts, it appears that the assessing officer rejected the declarations in C forms bearing Nos. G 390746 for Rs. 3,272. 40, G 955432 for Rs. 265. 75, G 955433 for Rs. 3,657. 07, A 152106 for Rs. 723. 89 and C 638018 for Rs. 2,854. 51. These C forms did not contain the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer. The assessee filed an appeal against this order and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, by his order dated 13th October, 1964, passed in Sales Tax First Appeal No. 13 of 1964-65, set aside the order rejecting the said C forms on the ground that no opportunity was given to the assessee to rectify the technical mistakes and, therefore, remanded the case for fresh assessment after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistakes. After remand, the assessee filed the letters from the respective purchasing dealers in which the date from which their registration certificate was valid was mentioned. In respect of forms Nos. G 390746, G 955432 and G 955433, the letters mentioned that the registration certificate was valid with effect from 1st November, 1960. In respect of C form No. A 152106, the letter mentioned that the registration certificate was valid with effect from 13th July, 1957, and in respect of C form No. C 638018, the letter mentioned that the registration certificate was valid from 17th July, 1957. The assessing authority then accepted the C forms which had been rejected earlier and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. The assessing authority then accepted the C forms which had been rejected earlier and accordingly assessed the tax at the concessional rate. Thereafter, the Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 39 (2) of the Act issued a notice to the assessee as the Commissioner wanted to revise the order on the ground that, " When once a C form has been filed before the assessing authority, its validity or otherwise would depend entirely on the manner in which it complies with the provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Rules made thereunder. The assessing authority had neither any power to call for any fresh evidence nor to entertain any corroborative evidence in respect of the declarations. The declarations should, therefore, have been rejected. " After hearing the parties the Commissioner passed an order rejecting the C forms and assessing tax in respect of the amounts covered by the said C forms at the full rate. The assessee filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was allowed. At the instance of the department the Board of Revenue has referred the aforesaid questions of law to this Court for its opinion. 3. When this reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench, it was noticed that there was an apparent conflict between the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain ([1978] 41 S. T. C. 484.), and the view taken by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Dayaram Balchand ([1973] 31 S. T. C. 249.) and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Badri Lal Hanuman Prasad of Indore ([1979] 44 S. T. C. 479. ). The Division Bench therefore directed by its order dated 6th December, 1979 (Page 252 supra.), that the matter he placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. That is how this case came up for hearing before us. 4. Now, in the instant case, the assessing authority had rejected the declarations in C forms submitted by the assessee on the ground that the number and date of the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer was not mentioned, without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify these defects. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, remanded the case and on remand the defects were removed by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, remanded the case and on remand the defects were removed by the assessee. The real question for consideration therefore is, whether the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the declaration forms submitted by him before proceeding to reject them. If the assessing authority was not required to give any such opportunity, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case for that purpose. This was not a case where instead of submitting declarations as required by section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessee had merely produced other documents to prove the particulars which the assessee was required to furnish in the form prescribed in that behalf. The assessee had submitted declaration forms before the assessing authority and when the defect in those forms was pointed out to the assessee, the assessee cured that defect to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. Whether the material produced by the assessee before the assessing authority was sufficient for curing the defects in the forms was not a matter for consideration either before the Commissioner or before the Board. The questions framed by the Board, therefore, do not, in our opinion, bring out the real issue involved in this case. We therefore reframe the question as follows : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects noticed by the assessing authority in the declarations furnished by the assessee under section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting these declarations ?" 5. Now, at the material time, it is admitted before us, there was no provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder which required the assessing authority to give reasonable opportunity to a dealer to supply the omissions or remove the defects in a declaration furnished under section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting it as invalid on the ground that it lacked in certain material particulars or was defective. The rejection of declarations, it is not disputed, will result in denying the dealer the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. The rejection of declarations, it is not disputed, will result in denying the dealer the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. The rejection would, therefore, adversely affect a dealer who claimed the benefit of the concessional rate. The order of rejection cannot be passed by an assessing authority arbitrarily. It is a quasi-judicial act and it is thus inherent in the very nature of an order, expressly or impliedly rejecting the declaration furnished by the dealer, that it should be passed after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Such opportunity cannot be held to be an empty formality but would necessarily carry with it the opportunity to remove the defects in the declaration to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. Denial of such opportunity would mean that even a defect in the declaration arising out of an inadvertent mistake or omission in the declaration could not be cured. Such a construction of section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, would be too technical and is, in our opinion, not warranted by the provisions of that section. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dayaram Balchand ([1973] 31 S. T. C. 249.), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the assessing authority ought to give an opportunity to the dealer to explain errors or omissions noticed by the assessing authority in the declarations in form C prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, before rejecting them as invalid. We respectfully agree with this view. 6. The learned counsel for the department referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1965] 16 S. T. C. 607 (S. C ).) and contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, a dealer was debarred from producing evidence to cure the defects in the declarations. Now, the decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1965] 16 S. T. C. 607 (S. C. ).) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the assessee did not furnish the declarations as prescribed by the relevant Act but wanted to produce evidence to prove that the sales were made to the registered dealers. Now, the decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1965] 16 S. T. C. 607 (S. C. ).) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the assessee did not furnish the declarations as prescribed by the relevant Act but wanted to produce evidence to prove that the sales were made to the registered dealers. It was in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the dealer has to strictly comply with the provisions of law requiring him to furnish declarations in the prescribed forms and that he cannot be allowed to produce other evidence to prove that the sales were to the registered dealers. The question as to whether opportunity should or should not be given to a dealer to rectify the defects in the declarations furnished by him before the assessing authority did not arise in that case. 7. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain ([1978] 41 S. T. C. 484.), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the department, a Division Bench of this Court held that if there were omissions in a declaration form furnished by a dealer before an assessing authority, the principles of natural justice could not be invoked for giving an opportunity to the dealer to rectify the defects in tile declaration form. This view, with respect, would result in debarring a person from correcting even an inadvertent error or omission in the declaration form furnished by him and such a construction of section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as already observed by us, is not warranted by law. The decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Bombay Textile Stores, Ujjain ([1978] 41 S. T. C. 484.), to the extent to which it lays down that the principles of natural justice would be inapplicable when an assessing authority proceeds to reject the declaration form submitted by a dealer under section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, does not, in our opinion, lay down correct law. 8. For all these reasons, our answer to the question reframed by us as aforesaid is that the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect noticed in the declaration form furnished by the assessee under section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. before rejecting these declarations. 8. For all these reasons, our answer to the question reframed by us as aforesaid is that the assessing authority was required to give opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect noticed in the declaration form furnished by the assessee under section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. before rejecting these declarations. The answer is thus in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly. .