JUDGMENT DEEPAK VERMA, J. - By filing this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution, petitioner is challenging the revisional order dated May 26, 1986, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore (annexure P7). 2. Brief facts material for deciding the said petition are mentioned hereinbelow : Petitioner is a partnership-firm, carrying on business of purchase and sale of grain, oil-seeds, kirana and is also acting as commission agent. Petitioner is a duly registered dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). 3. This petition relates to the assessment of petitioner's firm to sales tax under the Act, for the period commencing from November 6, 1972 to October 25, 1973. 4. Petitioner claimed benefit of deduction under section 2(r)(iv) of the Act, in respect of the sales made against declaration submitted by him in form No. XII. The said sales were made to one M/s. N. A. Trading Company. Submission of declaration forms in form No. XII contemplates, with regard to tax-paid goods made by one registered dealer to another registered dealer. Petitioner also claimed deduction with regard to sales amounting to Rs. 4,74,728 effected by it to its commission agent, i.e., M/s. N. A. Trading Company. 5. Petitioner has also placed reliance on a circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax dated September 22, 1960 which, stipulates that on furnishing of "Arat Patti" of accounts sale by the assessee from the commission agent to the assessing authority, the assessee shall get advantage of the deductions. This is of course, subject to cross-check of the same by the other assessing authority. If these "Arat Patti" or accounts sale are produced by the principal to the assessing authority, then, his liability to pay sales tax on the said goods of which "Arat Patti" or accounts sale have been produced, comes to an end. 6. Petitioner places reliance on a judgment reported in (1981) 14 VKN 146 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ramswarup Banwarilal) in which this question has been elaborately dealt with. 7. However, the assessing authority did not agree with the contention, as advanced by the petitioner and held it liable to pay the taxes, on the ground, that N. A Trading Company was a factitious firm, whose registration was also cancelled with retrospective date. 7. However, the assessing authority did not agree with the contention, as advanced by the petitioner and held it liable to pay the taxes, on the ground, that N. A Trading Company was a factitious firm, whose registration was also cancelled with retrospective date. Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and twice it was remanded to the assessing authority, but, finally Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground, that M/s. N. A. Trading Company was a fictitious firm to whom and through whom, the sales were effected by the petitioner for which benefit is being sought by the petitioner. It has also been held by the appellate authority that the registration of M/s. N. A. Trading Company has been cancelled retrospectively. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner, preferred further revision under section 39(1) of the Act before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. The revisional authority has also concurred with the appellate authority and the assessing authority. Consequently and in the result, petitioner's revision has also been dismissed. 9. Petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the same. 10. Respondents have filed their reply in oppugnation. They have contended that after recording of findings of fact by the respondents, the case calls for no interference. 11. I have heard the counsel for the parties, perused the record. 12. At the outset, Shri P. M. Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner, submitted, that after passing of the revisional order on May 26, 1986, this High Court and other High Courts had the occasion to consider the case of an identical nature. 13. The first case on which he has placed reliance, is, reported in (1986) 19 VKN 420 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Roshanlal Gulshanlal). In the said case, division Bench of this Court has held that on account of cancellation of a registration certificate of selling or purchasing dealer with retrospective effect, the other dealer whether selling or purchasing, cannot be deprived from the benefit of tax-paid goods. It has also been held that the subsequent cancellation of the registration, even from its inception, will not have the effect of depriving him of that benefit under section 2(r)(ii) of the Act, for the requirement of law stood satisfied as soon as he could show that the purchases were from a a registered dealer. 14. It has also been held that the subsequent cancellation of the registration, even from its inception, will not have the effect of depriving him of that benefit under section 2(r)(ii) of the Act, for the requirement of law stood satisfied as soon as he could show that the purchases were from a a registered dealer. 14. This has been held so on the ground that when the sales were effected by the selling dealer, he was not aware that on a future date, the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer is likely to be cancelled, that too with retrospective effect. 15. It is also not in dispute that registration of a firm is not granted for mere asking. Sales Tax Department holds an enquiry with regard to genuineness of the firm and other details and only, thereafter, a necessary certificate is granted. The judgment of this High Court has been passed after the order by the revisional authority had been passed. Therefore, this judgment could not be brought to the notice of the revisional authority. 16. Following this judgment, division Bench has passed another order. which is reported in (1996) 29 VKN 288 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Govind Trading Co.). Similar is the view expressed by division Bench of this Court, reported in (1995) 28 VKN 4 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dharamkishan Harbhajalal). 17. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had the occasion to consider a similar situation. It has also held that cancellation of registration with retrospective effect shall not deprive the selling dealer of the benefits that are likely to accrue to him on account of such sale. The said judgment of the Bombay High Court are reported in [1981] 48 STC 207 (Suresh Trading Company v. State of Maharashtra) and [1981] 48 STC 223 [Cromelite (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra]. In fact, these judgments of the Bombay High Court have been followed by this High Court. 18. After having heard the counsel for parties, the fact remains that the first judgment of our High Court had not been pronounced, before the date, the revisional order came to be passed. Thus, the same could not be produced before him for applying to the facts of the instant case. 19. 18. After having heard the counsel for parties, the fact remains that the first judgment of our High Court had not been pronounced, before the date, the revisional order came to be passed. Thus, the same could not be produced before him for applying to the facts of the instant case. 19. In that light of the aforesaid judgments, as mentioned above, both the counsel submit and do not dispute that the matter is fit for remand to the revisional authority, so that the revisional authority shall be in a position to apply the aforesaid cases to the facts of the petitioner's case in the proper perspective. 20. I, accordingly, quash the impugned order (annexure P7) and remand the matter to respondent No. 2 for hearing the matter afresh in the light of the authorities cited by him above, or any other authority, cited by the parties in this regard. Needless to say, the parties shall be given an opportunity of hearing, only, thereafter, he shall pass a reasoned order in this regard. The revisional authority shall consider the revision only on the aforesaid question and shall pass the order in accordance with law. 21. Since the matter is old, parties are agree that they shall before the respondent No. 2 on January 6, 1998. It is expressed of respondent No. 2 to dispose of the revision on merits within a period of three months from the said date. 22. On account of foregoing discussions, the petition stands allowed, as mentioned above, but, with no order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner after its due verification. Petition allowed.