JUDGMENT This is an application under section 44(2)(b) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short), on behalf of the applicant/assessee and three questions have framed by the assessee for calling the statement of case from the Board of Revenue. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 3. It is not necessary to give detailed facts. Suffice it to say that the assessee was assessed for the assessment period from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1980 by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, by his assessment order dated December 20, 1983 and raised an extra demand of sales tax amounting to Rs. 3,24,246 by not allowing further time to procure and produce few declarations for sales at concessional rate of sales tax, by not accepting few certificates and also by rejecting the appendix certificates taxable at the concessional rate of sales tax for an amount of Rs. 33,98,837 for sales of tyres and tubes of heavy machineries on wheels. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the finding of the assessing authority and then the assessee approached the Board of Revenue in second appeal and the Board of Revenue also rejected the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the orders of the authorities below. Therefore, an application was made for referring the case to this Court, which was rejected by the Board of Revenue. Hence the present application has been made by the assessee for calling the statement of case. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the first question does arise for calling the reference, which reads as under : "Whether the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) was justified in holding that the appendix certificates which are not timely received from the Government departments and Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board are not acceptable at the appeal stage when the same were available at that stage ?" This question does require an answer because the Lordships of honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd.; [1994] 94 STC 410; AIR 1994 SC 2364 , have taken the view that any document which is filed at the time of assessment, should be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the decision of this Court given in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dawar Brothers [1986] 61 STC 35. Hence, we direct the Board of Revenue to send the statement of case pertaining to the aforesaid question for answer of this Court. Rest two questions which have been framed by the assessee, do not warrant any answer; therefore that prayer is rejected.