JUDGMENT : G. G. SOHANI, AG. C. J. The judgment in this case will also govern the disposal of Misc. Civil Case No. 396 of 1983 as a common question of law is involved in these cases. 2. By these references under section 44 (1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion : " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods mentioned in Notification No. 1230-878-V-ST, dated March 28, 1968 as extended from time to time, would also include electrical goods and whether they are also entitled to the concessional rate of tax. " 3. The material facts giving rise to this reference briefly are as follows : The assessee which is a dealer in electrical goods was assessed to tax under the Act for the relevant assessment year. In connection with sale of certain electrical goods, the assessee claimed concessional rate of tax on that turnover in view of the Notification No. 1230-878-V-ST, dated March 28, 1968. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was also dismissed. In the second appeal preferred by the assessee before the Board of Revenue, the Board found that the declarations furnished by the assessee were not validly rejected by the assessing authority. The Board allowed the appeal and directed that tax be levied at the concessional rate in terms of the notification in question. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Board, the department sought reference and it is at the instance of the department that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion. 4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be useful to refer to the relevant notification under which the concessional rate is claimed. The notification is as follows : " NOTIFICATIOn No. 1230-878-V-ST Dated the 28th March, 1968. 4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be useful to refer to the relevant notification under which the concessional rate is claimed. The notification is as follows : " NOTIFICATIOn No. 1230-878-V-ST Dated the 28th March, 1968. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), the State Government hereby exempts in part, the class of goods mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule below from the payment of tax so as to reduce it to the rate of tax mentioned in column (2) thereof for the period specified in column (3) and subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in column (4) of the said Schedule. SCHEDULe ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Class of goods Reduced Period Restrictions and conditions rate of subject to which exemption tax is granted ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Machinery, plant, One per From 1st When sold by a dealer tools, spare parts cent April, 1968 registered under the Madhya and accessories to 31st Pradesh General Sales Tax thereof excluding March, 1969 Act, 1958 (No. 2 of 1959), all kinds of (Both days to another such dealer vehicles, spare inclusive) against a declaration in parts and writing in the appended accessories form that the goods sold thereof. are purchased for use by him in the manufacture or processing inside the State of Madhya Pradesh of goods for sale. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It was not disputed before us that the period specified in the aforesaid column No. (3) was extended from time to time and that at the relevant period, the notification was in force. It was also not disputed before us that the electrical goods in question formed part of the plant. What was, however, vehemently urged on behalf of the department was that the goods in question were not used by the purchaser for manufacture or processing and hence the condition subject to which the exemption was available by the notification was not fulfilled in the instant case. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this reference has to be answered against the department. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this reference has to be answered against the department. In order that a dealer should become entitled to the concessional rate of tax in terms of the notification, the conditions prescribed by the notification are that the dealer should be a registered dealer, that the sale should be in favour of another registered dealer under the Act and that the said sale should be against the prescribed declaration. It is not disputed that the prescribed declarations from the purchasers were filed in the instant case by the assessee. The genuineness of the declarations is also not disputed. It is also not urged that there was any collusion between the parties. What is urged on behalf of the department is that the declarations were not true because the purchaser did not use the goods for manufacture or processing. It is not necessary to go into the question of actual user of the goods by the purchaser for purposes of applicability of the notification in question. In this connection, we may, usefully refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] 62 STC 112; 1986 Cur TJ 292 : " The genuineness of the certificate and declaration may be examined by the taxing authority but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements. The sales tax authorities can examine whether certificate is farzi or not, or if there was any collusion on the part of selling dealer - but not beyond - i. e. , how the purchasing dealer has dealt with the goods. If in an appropriate case it could be established that the certificates were farzi or that there was collusion between the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer, different considerations would arise. " It is true that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a certificate required to be furnished under rule 12-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. But the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision would be attracted in the instant case. The order, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax. 6. But the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision would be attracted in the instant case. The order, in our opinion, was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax. 6. Our answer to the question referred to this Court is, therefore, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the electrical goods in question were liable to be taxed under the concessional rate of tax vide Notification No. 1230-878-V-ST, dated March 28, 1968, as extended from time to time. Reference is answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly. .