JUDGMENT This is a reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the instance of the assessee and the following two questions of law have been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer of this Court, which read as under : "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in refusing to accept E-II forms when the same had been filed on December 23, 1982 on the ground that the same had to be filed before the assessing authority ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that E-II forms could not be accepted by the first appellate authority or the Board of Revenue and the same should be filed before the assessing authority ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The assessed was assessed to tax for the period from October 24, 1976 to November 11, 1977. The assessee is engaged in the business of sale of konda. The applicant was also asked for an opportunity to produce E-II forms before the assessing authority for which sufficient time was not given. In first appeal, the assessee wanted to furnish E-II forms, which opportunity was refused. The assessee preferred second appeal in which the assessee stated that since appellate proceedings were in continuation of original assessment proceedings, E-II forms could be presented even at the appellate stage, and in support thereof, reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Subbiah Pillai & Co. v. State of Madras [1967] 20 STC 266. But the Board of Revenue by order dated November 24, 1982 did not feel inclination to permit the forms E-I and H-II at the appellate stage and in this connection, reference was made to the decisions of various High Courts and thereby rejected the appeal. Hence, an application was made before the Board of Revenue for sending the reference to this Court and the Board of Revenue has referred the aforesaid questions of law for answer of this Court. 3. There was a conflict of opinion in various High Courts that whether appellate authority can entertain such form or not when law requires that it should be produced before assessing authority. 3. There was a conflict of opinion in various High Courts that whether appellate authority can entertain such form or not when law requires that it should be produced before assessing authority. An identical question came up for consideration before the honourable Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410. while dealing with sub-rule (7) of rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, framed under the Sales Tax Act also. If any assessee wants to seek any exemption then form C be issued or dealer should be placed before the assessing authority and in that context, their Lordships observed that the expression "first assessing authority" does not mean that the appellate authority is devoid of any power to entertain such application. Rule 12(7) is almost identical with the rule 8(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957. There also, the registered dealer claiming exemption from tax has to submit the certificate in forms E-I and E-II before the assessing authority, as required under rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. In that context, their Lordships with reference to the Rules of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh held that the appellate authority can receive the form C in appeal hut a rider has been put that whether there was a sufficient cause shown or not. In the present case, the party appeared before the Tribunal and sought time and then thereafter certificate was filed along with the application on subsequent date. The Tribunal took a technical view and did not consider the affidavit filed by the assessee In fact, the assessee could not procure the certificate on account of the fact that the chief executive of M/s. Sitaram Khandelwal was out of station and, therefore time was sought and when the certificate was received, the same was produced at the appellate stage along with the application. This was a sufficient cause and it is not a case that the appellate authority has no power to accept it in view of the recent decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410. This was a sufficient cause and it is not a case that the appellate authority has no power to accept it in view of the recent decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410. The authority can accept the form at the appellate stage also and their Lordships observed : "Therefore, the mere use of the words 'the first assessing authority' in sub-rule (7) of rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which prescribes the furnishing of form C issued by a dealer who purchases goods from the dealer submitting his return of turnover, cannot and does not mean, in the context and scheme of the Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh enactments, that the appellate authorities do not have the power to receive form C in appeal. This power can, of course, be exercised only where sufficient cause is shown by the dealer for not filing them up to the time of assessment before the first assessing authority. If, in a given case, a dealer had obtained further time from the first assessing authority and yet failed to produce the form C before him, it is obvious that the appellate authority would adopt a stiffer standard in judging the sufficient cause shown by the dealer for not producing them earlier. Receipt of the form in appeal cannot be a matter of course; it should be allowed only where sufficient cause is established by the dealer for not producing them before the first assessing authority as contemplated by rule 12(7). The requirement of that sub-rule cannot be excluded from consideration by the appellate authority while judging the sufficiency of the cause shown. It is the primary obligation of the dealer and his failure to abide by it must be properly explained." In view of the fact that there appears to be a sufficient cause in the present case for not filing the forms E-I and E-II before the assessing authority and the same was produced at the appellate stage along with the affidavit that shows that there was sufficient cause in not filing the forms because the chief executive of M/s. Sitaram Khandelwal was not available at that time. Therefore, we find that there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay and the appellate authority should have accepted the forms E-I and E-II at the appellate stage and the appellate authority was not devoid of power to accept the same. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. We answer both the aforesaid questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference answered in the negative.