JUDGMENT H. L. AGRAWAL, C.J. and S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - This is an appeal under section 23(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act') against the order 26th March, 1980 (annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (O.P. 1). The matter relates to acceptance of C declaration forms by the appellate authority. 2. The appellant is a dealer and carries on business of manufacture and sale of different varieties of oil at Sambalpur. The assessing authority raised a demand of Rs. 84,805.78 by disallowing the claim of the dealer under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act in the absence of the declaration forms in question. Against this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur and filed the declaration forms before the appellate authority, who accepted the same and granted relief to the appellant by imposing tax at a lower rate. Thereafter the Commissioner issued a notice under section 23(4)(a) of the Act and by the impugned order came to hold that the acceptance of the declaration forms by the appellate authority was not justified as sufficient opportunity had been granted by the assessing authority to the dealer to produce the same before him. So, he set aside the order of the appellate authority. 3. Mr. Mohanti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has invited our attention to two decisions of this Court in (i) Orissa State Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation Ltd., Rayagada v. State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa [1988] 68 STC 217; (1987) 1 OLR 329, which was decided by this very Bench, and (ii) State of Orissa, represented by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa v. Mineral & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta [1988] 68 STC 71; (1987) 1 OLR 361, wherein it has been laid down that if the appellate authority feels persuaded that there was sufficient reason for non-production of the C declaration forms before the assessing officer and where he is of the opinion that the genuineness or otherwise of such form requires scrutiny, then the proper procedure is to remit back the matter to the assessing authority for scrutiny of the declaration forms for coming to a conclusion. 4. 4. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the department, we are satisfied that the appellant had made out a case for non-production of the forms before the assessing authority. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority was within his rights to accept them. However, he committed a mistake inasmuch as instead of remitting back the matter to the assessing authority, he accepted the forms without proper scrutiny. Therefore, his order was fit to be interfered with by the Commissioner to that extent only. 5. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner and direct that the matter be remitted back to the appropriate Sales Tax Officer for verification of the C declaration forms filed by the appellant before the appellate authority and then pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law. No costs. Appeal allowed.