Judgment :- DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J. This tax appeal is directed against the suo motu order of revision passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras, on 4th June, 1981. 2. By the order dated 31st March, 1978, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guindy Assessment Circle, determined the total and taxable turnover of the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the order the appellant filed an appeal. At the appellate stage it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant-assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax in view of the proviso to section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee produced form XVII declarations for a sum of Rs. 95, 089. The assessee did not claim any concessional rate of tax in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 4, 569 which admittedly was not covered by form XVII declarations. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noticed the law laid down by this Court in Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras) Private Ltd. v. State of Madras 1968 (21) STC 120 , Eltex Engineering Corporation Private Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer 1972 (30) STC 146 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Refineries Limited 1978 (41) STC 306 and held that form XVII declarations could be filed and accepted even by the appellate authority. After so recording a finding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the assessing authority for scrutiny of the form XVII declarations and for disposal of the case according to law only in respect of the turnover of Rs. 95, 089 which was the amount covered by form XVII declarations furnished by the appellant-assessee. In exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, the Joint Commissioner, however, set aside the order of the appellate authority and holding that since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not recorded any findings as to whether or not the failure on the part of the assessee to produce form XVII declarations before the assessing authority was for sufficient reasons beyond the control of the assessee and therefore, the order of remand was bad. Consequently the provisional pre-revision notice was confirmed and the amount of Rs. 95, 089 was restored for assessment as originally made by the assessing officer. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside. 3. Consequently the provisional pre-revision notice was confirmed and the amount of Rs. 95, 089 was restored for assessment as originally made by the assessing officer. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside. 3. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shows that he has merely adverted to the legal consequence flowing from the various judgments of this Court referred to in his order without first adverting to the factual basis. There is no gainsaying that form XVII declarations in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company 1982 (51) STC 381 can be accepted even by the appellate authority provided the appellate authority is satisfied that the assessee was prevented from producing the same before the assessing authority for sufficient reasons. It is, therefore, imperative for the appellate authority to record a finding one way or the other when form XVII declarations are produced for the first time at the appellate stage whether the same should be admitted and for coming to that conclusion a finding has to be recorded as to whether or not the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing at the earliest opportunity before the assessing authority form XVII declarations. The appellate authority must form an opinion on the factual basis before accepting or rejecting the prayer of an assessee to allow the production of form XVII declarations at the appellate stage. That undoubtedly has not been done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the order of remand, therefore cannot be sustained. We find that even the Joint Commissioner only adverted to the statement of law but returned no factual finding on to whether or not the assessee was prevented by sufficient means from producing form XVII declarations before the assessing authority. The order of the Joint Commissioner in so far as it set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has to be sustained though not the conclusion of the Joint Commissioner with regard to the restoration of the order of assessment as originally made by the assessing authority with regard to the sum of Rs. 95, 089 which amount was sought to be recovered by form XVII declarations. 95, 089 which amount was sought to be recovered by form XVII declarations. Consequently we find that this is a fit case which deserves to be remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company (supra) and in Tax Case (R) No. 629 of 1990 decided on 30th August, 1990 [Reported as State of Tamil Nadu v. English Electric Co. of India Ltd. [supra] and by us hereinabove. The order of the Joint Commissioner is consequently sustained only to the extent that it set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and is not sustained with regard to the restoration of the order of the assessing authority. The matter shall stand remitted to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for proper disposal in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.