ORDER DEEPAK VERMA, J. - In this petition, petitioner calls in question the order (annexure P1) dated December 27, 1986, passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Indore; first revisional order, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore, dated September 8, 1987 (annexure P4); suo motu revisional order dated January 11, 1989 (annexure P6) and further review of the said order dated January 9, 1990 (annexure P8), passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore. 2. Facts lie in narrow compass : petitioner is engaged in purchase and sale of iron and steel goods. It is duly registered under the provisions of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act") as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Petitioner had been observing "Diwali to Diwali" as accounting year. 3. In this petition question is with regard to sales effected by petitioner to respondent No. 5, M/s. Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd., commencing from the period November 5, 1983 to October 24, 1984, i.e., Diwali-1983 to Diwali-1984. Assessment for the said year has been completed by respondent No. 1, vide, annexure P1. At the time of assessment, petitioner submitted declarations issued by M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd., in form No. XII(J) as prescribed under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. Similar declarations were submitted by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 in appendix B-1, received from respondent No. 5. 4. There is no dispute to the fact that these forms were actually received by respondent No. 1 with regard to declarations, so that necessary benefits in computing the taxable turnover could be worked out. In the forms submitted by petitioner, with regard to sale mentioned above, the total amount for which the sales were effected, have been mentioned therein. 5. Respondent No. 1 refused the deduction in both the aforesaid cases, i.e., M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd., mainly on the ground, that these two parties who are said to be purchasing dealers must not have used the iron and steel, purchased from the petitioner, as raw material or towards plant and machinery in their respective units. 6. Feeling aggrieved by this order, passed by respondent No. 1, petitioner preferred a revision under section 39(1) of the Act before respondent No. 2. 6. Feeling aggrieved by this order, passed by respondent No. 1, petitioner preferred a revision under section 39(1) of the Act before respondent No. 2. The revision has also been dismissed, almost, on the similar ground. The petitioner, thereafter, made a request to respondent No. 3 to take up the order in suo motu revision under section 39(1)(A) of the Act. However, that prayer was also refused. Petitioner, thereafter, made another attempt with a prayer of the review of the said order, but, that has also been refused. Petitioner has now approached this Court, challenging the aforesaid orders. 7. Respondents have submitted their return in oppugnation. Their sheet anchor of the defence is, that all these sales for which declaration has been submitted by the petitioner, have been made in collusion with the purchasing dealers, basically, with an intention to avoid payment of sales tax on the items which have been sold to these purchasing dealers. 8. It has not been disputed that exemption on payment of tax in respect of sale of iron and steel can be obtained by the selling dealer against the production of declaration on prescribed form. Such declaration, according to the respondents, have been prescribed under rule 20(2) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for brevity, hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules, 1959"). 9. They have further mentioned, that on an inquiry being conducted by respondents, it has been revealed that the purchasing dealers, M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. or respondent No. 5, M/s. Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd., would not have required iron and steel, which was purchased by them from the petitioner, either, as raw material or as items for plant and machinery. Their contention is, that the forms having been obtained fraudulently, would not enure any benefit to the petitioner, and, respondents were justified in not taking into consideration the declaration, as submitted by the petitioner. They have, accordingly, prayed that the petition being devoid of any merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the back-drop of the contentions, as advanced by the learned counsel for parties, I have perused the record, heard them at length. 11. They have, accordingly, prayed that the petition being devoid of any merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the back-drop of the contentions, as advanced by the learned counsel for parties, I have perused the record, heard them at length. 11. Shri Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has strenuously submitted, that under the scheme of the Act, it is not incumbent on the part of the selling dealer to hold an inquiry with regard to declarations given and submitted to the selling dealer by the purchasing, dealers. According to him, the face value of the said declaration have to be taken as it is, which, ultimately makes the selling dealer entitled to claim benefits. 12. It is, his further contention that petitioner could not have inquired the purpose for which the items were purchased by the petitioner, more so, in the face of declaration given by these parties. Reference has also been made to rule 51 of Rules 1959. The relevant rule 51 is reproduced hereinbelow : "51. Acceptance of declaration or certificate. - No selling registered dealer shall refuse to accept any declaration or certificate furnished by a purchasing registered dealer in accordance with any provision of the Act or any rule framed or any notification issued thereunder." 13. Bare reading of the Rule, makes it abundantly clear that it is not within the domain of the selling dealer to hold an inquiry with regard to the purpose for which the materials have been purchased by the purchasing dealers. It is also not in dispute that both the purchasing dealers are also duly registered under the provisions of the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid rule, I find, that respondents were not justified in refusing to accept the declaration as submitted by the petitioner. 15. The question, which has arisen in this petition, has been elegantly and elaborately considered and discussed by a division Bench of this Court, reported in [1996] 102 STC 544 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. National Enterprises). In this case, division Bench has considered the scope and liability of the selling dealer on production of declaration. 15. The question, which has arisen in this petition, has been elegantly and elaborately considered and discussed by a division Bench of this Court, reported in [1996] 102 STC 544 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. National Enterprises). In this case, division Bench has considered the scope and liability of the selling dealer on production of declaration. It may also be pertinent to mention here that respondents have also not filed the relevant registration certificate of M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd., to show to the court that the items so purchased by the purchasing dealer were not shown or included as incidental goods in the said certificate. It was only the respondents who could have done that. But they have not produced any material before this Court, whereby, it could be conclusively proved that the goods so purchased by these two parties, could not have been included in incidental goods also. 16. It may further be mentioned here that the respondents have for the first time, taken this stand in this petition, that the petitioner had obtained the declaration from the aforesaid two parties by collusion. 17. I am afraid, in this proceeding, respondents cannot be permitted to take up a new defence which, even though, available earlier, but, was not taken. 18. To advance arguments further, in this regard, petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in [1986] 62 STC 112 (Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax), in which, Supreme Court has held that the genuineness of the certificate and the declaration in form III-A may be examined by the taxing authority, but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements made therein. The taxing authority may examine whether the certificate was issued in collusion or was forged or fabricated, but, could not have inquired whether the purchasing dealer had subsequently sold the goods or consumed them. These observations of the apex Court, set the controversy at rest. They have furnished the necessary declarations from the purchasing dealers. Nothing more was required to be done at the hands of the petitioner. Even, if, any inquiry was to be held, the same could be for the limited purpose, as mentioned above. 19. Thus, I find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 20. They have furnished the necessary declarations from the purchasing dealers. Nothing more was required to be done at the hands of the petitioner. Even, if, any inquiry was to be held, the same could be for the limited purpose, as mentioned above. 19. Thus, I find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on two division Bench judgments of this Court, reported in 1982 Cur TJ 245 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Wazirchand Madanlal Sethi) and 1982 Cur TJ 140 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Lakshmichand Badrinarayan). The case of Wazirchand 1982 Cur TJ 245 (MP) deals with the provisions of section 8(1) of the Act and rule 20(4) of the Rules, 1959, which essentially deal with regard to the benefits to be claimed by the purchasing dealer. Similar is the position with regard to the judgment of Lakshmichand Badrinarayan 1982 Cur TJ 140 (MP). 21. Thus, on consideration of the matter, I find, that these judgments do not apply to the facts of the instant case. Here it is reverse situation, where, benefit is sought, on account of declaration given to the selling dealer by the purchasing dealers. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion, that the respondents could not have ignored the declarations, as submitted by the petitioner with regard to the sales effected to M/s. Aboo Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. and Dhar Cement Pvt. Ltd. between the period commencing from November 5, 1983 to October 24, 1984. The impugned orders, in so far as, they rejected the petitioner's prayer for grant of exemption in computation of the total taxable liability stands, hereby quashed. The necessary consequence of this, would be that the penalty which has been imposed on account of refusal to accept the declarations, would automatically stand quashed. The matter has necessarily to be remitted to respondent No. 1, for giving effect and passing an order of assessment afresh, in the light of the observations made above. 23. The petition, therefore, stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. Parties to bear their own cost. Security cost, if, deposited, be refunded back to the petitioner, after its due verification. Petition allowed.