Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is to an order dated March 29, 2000, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, in its revisional jurisdiction. Facts in brief that led to passing of impugned order and then this writ need mention. ( 2. ) PETITIONER is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of basic drugs which are used in manufacture of medicines. Petitioner is subjected to payment of State sales tax as also Central sales tax under the State sales tax laws and Central sales tax laws. The petitioner is registered as dealer under both the Acts, i. e. , Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. ( 3. ) THE petitioner was assessed to Central sales tax for the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995 by the assessing officer by its order dated June 22, 1998 (annexure E ). Since on certain transactions, the petitioner could not file forms C and H, and hence, they could not get the benefit of concessional rate of tax for want of forms C and H. The petitioner felt aggrieved of an assessment order on certain issues including the one relating to transactions of non-submission of forms C and H, filed revision to the Additional Commissioner. In the revision, the petitioner filed forms C and H which they could not file before assessing officer. By impugned order, the learned re visionary authority declined to take those C and H forms on record and dismissed the revision thereby, upholding the assessment order. It is against this order the petitioner has filed this writ. ( 4. ) HEARD Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and set aside the impugned two orders of assessment as also the Revisionary Tribunal. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and set aside the impugned two orders of assessment as also the Revisionary Tribunal. In my opinion, the revisionary authority should have taken the C and H forms filed by the petitioner on record as it was not the case where the authority were doubting the genuineness of these C and H forms or that they did not relate to the transactions in question. Merely because, they were filed late by itself was not a ground for rejecting the documents. ( 6. ) ONCE I hold that the revisionary authority should have allowed the C and H forms to be taken on record, then the consequence of the same is to set aside the order of revision and also that of assessing officer and remand the case to the assessing officer to make fresh assessment after taking into account the C and H forms filed by the petitioner. Since, the assessing officer is directed to make fresh assessment, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all issues in support of their case. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds. Impugned orders dated June 22, 1998 (annexure E) and revision order dated March 29, 2000 are set aside. The documents, i. e. , C and H forms filed by the petitioner before the revisionary authority along with the revision are taken on record. The case is remanded to the assessing authority for making de novo assessment for the period in question after taking into account of the C and H forms. Since the assessing officer is directed to make fresh assessment, the petitioner is free to raise all issues to support their case. Let the assessment be made within six months from the date of this order. No costs.