JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - This is an application filed by the petitioner under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The application is opposed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The matter relates to certain sales effected in the year 1976-77. Certain sales were made to registered dealers and certain other sales were made to Government departments. In regard to both sets of sales, petitioner would be entitled to benefit of concessional rate of sales tax under section 8(4)(a) and (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, provided he satisfies the conditions enumerated therein and rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. He is required to collect original "C" form from the purchaser/dealer and produce the same before the assessing authority. If the original "C" form is lost, he is required to submit indemnity bond to the notified authority and obtain a duplicate "C" form with a declaration from the purchaser and produce it before the assessing authority. He is required to follow a similar procedure in regard to "D" form also. 3. Petitioner produced "D" forms in the case relating to the year 1975-76. Under a mistaken belief that the originals were lost, he filed photo copies of the forms before the assessing authority in the case relating to 1976-77. The assessing authority declined to grant benefit of concessional rate of tax in regard to the "D" form transactions. This was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal, Board of Revenue, indicated that a lenient view should be taken as the petitioner had already produced the "D" forms in the case relating to the prior year and remanded the case to the assessing authority. The petitioner did not or could not obtain the original "C" forms from the purchasers and, therefore, did not produce the same before the assessing authority. He filed an application on July 6, 1981 before the assessing authority stating that in spite of his efforts he could not procure the "C" forms though he had already deputed a person to collect the same. He prayed for further time to obtain and produce the "C" forms. The assessing authority was not prepared to extend time since the period of limitation was to expire on December 31, 1981 and the petitioner was not vigilant. He prayed for further time to obtain and produce the "C" forms. The assessing authority was not prepared to extend time since the period of limitation was to expire on December 31, 1981 and the petitioner was not vigilant. Assessment was completed denying the petitioner the benefit of concessional rate of tax regarding "C" form transactions. This was challenged before the appellate authority who confirmed the order. The Board of Revenue also took the view that the petitioner was negligent in not obtaining "C" forms within a reasonable time on producing the same before the assessing authority and declined to remand that part of the case to the assessing authority. According to the petitioner, questions of law arise in regard to this part of the order. 4. Petitioner contends that since the case was remanded in regard to the "D" form transactions, the Tribunal was not right in law in declining to remand the case in regard to "C" form transactions also. Another question of law which is said to arise is whether the finding that the petitioner did not have sufficient cause for not obtaining and producing "C" forms before the assessing authority is reasonable or is based on evidence. 5. From the facts indicated above, the circumstances regarding "C" forms transactions are quite different from the circumstances regarding "D" form transactions. In regard to the latter, the petitioner had obtained the "D" forms but had produced them in the case relating to the previous year since some of the transactions related to that year. It was taking into consideration this circumstance that the Appellate Tribunal took a lenient view and remanded the case. The conduct of the petitioner in regard to the "C" form transactions was totally different. The only document explaining the reasons for non-production of the "C" forms before the assessing authority was annexure B which is a petition dated November 6, 1981 filed by the petitioner before the said authority. We have already adverted to the material averments in this petition. The petitioner claimed that he deputed a person to collect the "C" forms from the dealers who reside in different parts of the country and therefore he could not procure the same. The year in question is 1976-77. The petitioner thought of deputing a person to collect the "C" forms only more than four years after the end of the year. The year in question is 1976-77. The petitioner thought of deputing a person to collect the "C" forms only more than four years after the end of the year. He did not state, as now suggested by the learned counsel, that this act was preceded by sending innumerable letters and telegrams. It was on a consideration of these circumstances that the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was absolutely negligent in this matter. The Appellate Tribunal was not inclined to take a different view. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the records show that some "C" forms must have been obtained while the matter was pending in appeal even though merely a request for remand was made without producing the available forms before the appellate authority. The explanation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that this Court had taken the view earlier that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to receive documents and where there is the question of documents not being produced, the appropriate course to be adopted by the appellate authority is to remand the case to the assessing authority. Even to secure a remand, it is necessary that the appellant should make out a case and that he could do only by producing the documents before the appellate authority. Even if it is not possible for the appellate authority to receive the documents and act upon this can be looked into for the limited purpose of determining whether the remand would be justified or not. The petitioner did not produce the documents before the appellate authority or the Appellate Tribunal. 6. Whether sufficient cause was made out or not is a question of fact regarding which the appellate authority and the Tribunal have taken a view. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law arises in this regard. We find no ground to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case. The petition is dismissed without costs. Petition dismissed.