JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - The assessee has filed this application under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, since the Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) declined to make a reference under section 44(1) of the Act. 2. The dispute is in relation to goods sold in 1975 by the petitioner to M/s. Premier Cables, a registered dealer. It is said that the purchaser gave form C to the petitioner but the petitioner lost it. The petitioner executed indemnity bond as required under rule 12(2) of the Central (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Rule 12(3) requires to obtain a duplicate of form C or certificate together with a declaration by the purchaser. The duplicate and declaration are required to be furnished to the assessing authority while indemnity bond to the notified authority. The assessing authority made an assessment declining to give the petitioner the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and levied tax at the ordinary rate. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. He also filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the defect was not brought to his notice by the assessing authority. According to the petitioner, the defect was that though he produced the duplicate before the assessing authority, the duplicate did not contain the declaration. Learned Government Advocate states that the record did not show that any duplicate was produced before the assessing authority. The assessee, however, produced before the appellate authority the duplicate with a declaration. The appellate authority declined to receive the same and confirmed the order of dismissal. The Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the order of dismissal and declined to make reference. 3. Our attention has been invited to the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410 (SC); JT 1994 (3) SC 456; AIR 1994 SC 2364 where it has been held that the appellate authority or the second appellate authority has the power to receive form C in appeal and to grant relief, in case the dealer satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not producing the said form before the assessing authority. Neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal did consider whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not producing the particular document before the assessing authority. Neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal did consider whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not producing the particular document before the assessing authority. The appellate authority proceeded on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to receive the document and grant relief on that basis. This would certainly give rise to a question of law, namely, whether the appellate authority committed an error of law in not considering whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for not producing the proper document before the assessing officer and whether the appellate authority committed an error of law in not accepting the document and granting concessional rate of sales tax under section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 4. We dispose of the application directing the Appellate Tribunal (Board of Revenue) to state the case and make the reference to the High Court of the question or questions of law arising in the case. No costs. Application disposed of accordingly.