JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, which is the Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has referred to this Court the following question of law for its opinion under Section 44 (1) of the Act: Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing production of XII and XII-A declaration forms at the appellate stage subsequent to the assessment by the assessing authority ? ( 2. ) THE facts in brief necessary for answering the aforesaid question are that the assessee, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , Bhopal, is a Government of India public sector undertaking and is engaged in the manufacture of heavy electrical equipments. It was assessed for the period 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973 under the Act. Against the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred by the assessee and before the appellate authority, the assessee filed declarations in forms XII and XII-A. The appellate authority did not accept the declarations in forms XII and XII-A and the order in this behalf was affirmed by the Tribunal in second appeal. The view taken by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal was that these declaration forms could be filed only before the assessing authority and could not be filed in appeal. At the instance of the assessee, however, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question to this Court for its opinion. ( 3. ) IN taking the view that these declaration forms could not be filed in appeal, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. P. S. Sohi and Sons (Misc. Civil Case No. 197 of 1966 ). A perusal of this case indicates that it had in turn relied on another decision of this Court in K. M. Chopra and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore 1966 MPLJ 1115 . The decision in the case of K. M. Chopra and Co. Civil Case No. 197 of 1966 ). A perusal of this case indicates that it had in turn relied on another decision of this Court in K. M. Chopra and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore 1966 MPLJ 1115 . The decision in the case of K. M. Chopra and Co. 1966 MPLJ 1115 , which was relied on in the case in P. S. Sohi and Sons (M. C. C. No. 197 of 1966-Madhya Pradesh High Court), came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar of Rewa [1975] 35 STC 46. Before the Full Bench, a question arose as to whether certificates referred to in a notification issued under Section 12 of the Act could be produced even before the appellate authority or could be produced only before the assessing authority. While distinguishing the decision in the case of K. M. Chopra and Co. [1967] 19 STC 46 (MP); 1966 MPLJ 1115 , it was pointed out that that was a case under Section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which requires that in cases of sales to a registered dealer the declaration of the purchasing dealer should be furnished to "the prescribed authority" and that the said case had no application where the Act and the Rules do not contain a provision that certificates or documents under which the dealer claims a concession must be filed before the assessing authority. It was also held that in the absence of any such provision, the certificates or documents may in proper cases be admitted in appeal or revision. Reliance for this proposition was, inter alia, placed on Section 38 (5) of the Act which authorises the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal "after such further inquiry as it may think fit". ( 4. ) SHRI Dixit, Deputy Advocate-General, appearing for the respondents urged that the provision contained in Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 20 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, clearly prescribed that the declarations in forms XII and XII-A could be filed only before the assessing authority and since, in the instant case, the certificates which were sought to be filed were declarations in forms XII and XII-A, they could be filed only before the assessing authority and not before the appellate authority. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. The words used in Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 20 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, contemplate filing of the relevant document "at the time of assessment". These rules do not contemplate filing of the documents before the assessing authority. These very words "at the time of assessment" occurred in Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Mohatta Brothers v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue [1975] 36 STC 582 in a reference under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 21 (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It was held that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, enjoined production "at the time of the assessment. " The time of the assessment contemplated in the proper context must include all the stages of assessment and necessarily permits production of the declaration forms before any appellate or revisional authority before whom the question of assessment is pending. We are accordingly of the opinion that the appellate authority is entitled to admit in a proper case, additional evidence including the declarations in forms XII and XII-A which the assessee may have failed to produce before the assessing authority particularly in view of the enabling provision in this behalf in Section 38 (5) of the Act. ( 5. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing production of XII and XII-A declaration forms at the appellate stage subsequent to the assessment by the assessing authority on the ground that the appellate authority did not have the jurisdiction to admit into evidence those declaration forms, The question as to whether declaration forms ought or ought not to be admitted in evidence, in the circumstances of the case, had, therefore to be decided by the Tribunal on merits, and the prayer in this behalf ought not to have been rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to accept those documents. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.