JUDGMENT B. N. Mahapatra, J. - This batch of tax revision petitions filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Kansbahal, Sundargarh, has been admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in refusing to accept the declarations in form 'F' and form 'C' and whether such refusal on the part of the Tribunal does not run contrary to the law laid down by the honourable Orissa High Court in Oriental Chemical Industries v. State of Orissa [1979] 44 STC 241." To bring out the true essence of the dispute, the following questions are formulated. (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the declaration forms produced before it ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee accepted the view taken by Revenue and changed its stand at a later stage regarding nature of the transaction as inter-State sale and produced necessary declaration forms, those should have been accepted by the Tribunal ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, non-acceptance of the declaration forms in "C" and "F" by the Tribunal on the indicated reason is sustainable ? Since all the above questions are interconnected, instead of dealing with each question independently, for the sake of convenience they are taken up together for consideration. These tax revision petitions relate to years 1987-88 to 1991-92 and the questions raised in these cases being almost similar in nature, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts which give rise to these tax revision cases are as follows : The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its branches in different States of the country. The company has registered its branch office at Kansbahal in Sundargarh district in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the CST Act") bearing registration Nos. RL-II-41 and RL-II-C-22, respectively. The petitioner - unit at Kansbahal is a manufacturing unit. It manufactures machineries, equipments and spare parts. RL-II-41 and RL-II-C-22, respectively. The petitioner - unit at Kansbahal is a manufacturing unit. It manufactures machineries, equipments and spare parts. The Kansbahal unit effects both inter-State sale and intra-State sale besides transferring goods to its branches/sister concerns and work sites situated in other States, otherwise than by way of sale, for its own use and use of the same in execution of works contracts during the relevant years. For the purpose of execution of works contracts, the company entered into separate agreement with different contractees who were mainly public sector undertakings and Government run power projects. The scope of work was generally design and engineering, manufacturing, supply, erection, testing and commissioning, etc. The company had claimed transfer of machineries and equipments to its work sites in different States as transfer of those goods in course of execution of works contract. It also claimed that no Central sales tax is leviable on those transactions in view of non-amendment of section 2(g) and section 6 of the CST Act pursuant to 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India. This claim of the company was not accepted by the assessing officer who treated the same as inter-State sale and levied tax at the usual rate of ten per cent on the said turnover. The learned first appellate authority also held those transactions as inter-State sale. However, the assessing officer allowed the petitioner's claim of inter-State sale at concessional rate and transfer of machineries, equipments and spare parts to its branches and sister concerns to the extent of production of declarations in forms "C", "E-1" and "F" before him. The first appellate authority also accepted some declaration forms produced before it claiming at concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sale and declaration form in "F" against transfer of goods to its own branches and sister concerns otherwise than by way of sale. Being dissatisfied by the order of the first appellate authority, both the petitioner and the State filed appeals before the learned Tribunal. The second appeals filed by the State before the learned Sales Tax Tribunal challenging the acceptance of declaration in forms "C" and "F" by the first appellate authority was dismissed. Being dissatisfied by the order of the first appellate authority, both the petitioner and the State filed appeals before the learned Tribunal. The second appeals filed by the State before the learned Sales Tax Tribunal challenging the acceptance of declaration in forms "C" and "F" by the first appellate authority was dismissed. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner for the first time submitted declarations in form "C" claiming concessional rate of tax in respect of transfer of machineries, equipments and spare parts to its work sites situated in other States for the purpose of utilisation of the same in execution of works contract accepting the said transactions as inter-State sale as held by assessing officer and first appellate authority. It also produced wanting declarations in forms "C" and "F" against inter-State sale and branch transfer of machineries to its own branch and sister concerns. The declaration forms were not accepted by the learned Tribunal by holding : "Law is well-settled that a dealer has got the right of filing such required forms before this forum, if could not file them before the lower forum. But the dealer is bound to assign reason/reasons as to why those could not be filed before both the lower forum. The petition dated August 7, 2001 disclosed the reason that those forms were received by the dealer after the hearing of the first appeals. But strangely enough no such supporting documentary evidence in respect of such receipt after the hearing of the first appeal is produced before this forum. In absence of such material document/documents, it is not possible on our part to accept such reason assigned by the dealer. Hence the prayer of the dealer is disallowed." The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that its claim for non-payment of tax on transfer of machineries to its work sites for the purpose of utilisation of the same in course of execution of works contract was not accepted by the assessing officer. Against such order of the learned assessing officer, the dealer filed the first appeal on the same ground which had been taken by it before the assessing officer. Against such order of the learned assessing officer, the dealer filed the first appeal on the same ground which had been taken by it before the assessing officer. However, in course of hearing of first appeal when the petitioner found that the view of the first appellate authority was also to treat transfer of machineries, equipments and spare parts to its work sites as inter-State sale it changed its stand and wanted to file "C" declaration forms accepting the view of the department. For this purpose, the dealer requested the first appellate authority to allow it reasonable opportunity to collect declaration forms. The first appellate authority without allowing reasonable opportunity to collect declaration forms disposed of the appeal upholding the levy of tax at 10 per cent. The learned counsel further submitted that the dealer could be able to collect necessary declarations in form "C" against transfer of machineries and equipments to its work sites only after hearing of first appeal was closed as the forms were produced before the learned Tribunal. He further contended that the dealer could also be able to collect wanting declarations in forms "C" and "F" against inter-State sale and branch transfer of machineries and equipment only after the hearing of first appeals was closed, which it produced before the learned Tribunal. Stating the above reason that the declaration forms were received after hearing of first appeal, a petition dated August 7, 2001 was filed by the dealer before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to accept the declarations in forms "C" and "F" produced before it. He emphatically argued that in the circumstances, the learned Tribunal should have accepted the declarations in forms "C" and "F" produced before it. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of this court in the case of Sahu Trading Co. v. State of Orissa reported in [1983] 54 STC 122 and Oriental Chemical Industries v. State of Orissa reported in [1979] 44 STC 241. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Revenue at the time of call. In Sahu Trading Co. v. State of Orissa reported in [1983] 54 STC 122 and Oriental Chemical Industries v. State of Orissa reported in [1979] 44 STC 241. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Revenue at the time of call. In Sahu Trading Co. [1983] 54 STC 122, this court held that in the scheme of procedure of assessment under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 the declarations for claiming deductions on account of sales to registered dealers under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act are bound to be produced before the assessment is completed in case the assessee is to be given the deductions he claimed. There is however, no provision in the Act or the Rules to the effect that declarations not furnished at the original stage could not be produced later. There may be cases where for some good reasons deductions though claimed could not be supported by production of declarations at the assessment stage. In the absence of any prohibition, they can be certainly produced as evidence before the first appellate authority and such additional evidence could be received by the first appellate authority. In a suitable case, such declaration can even be produced as additional evidence before the Tribunal in second appeal after complying with the requirement of rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. It is within the discretion of the appellate authority to accept the evidence produced in support of the claim in appeal. It may be that in view of rule 27 of the Rules the assessee would not be entitled as of law to ask the declarations to be received and acted upon; but if the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his discretion under rule 50(2) accepts the declarations, the same cannot be refused for having been filed after the assessment was over. In the case of Oriental Chemical Industries [1979] 44 STC 241 the assessee was a registered dealer under the CST Act and bears registration certificate No. R.L.C. 660. It manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals and chemicals and has its place of business within the Industrial Estate of Rourkela. During the year 1969-70, the assessee purchased goods from M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals and others and had a sales turnover of Rs. 18,191.77 through transfer of documents of title to the goods while the same were still in transit. It manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals and chemicals and has its place of business within the Industrial Estate of Rourkela. During the year 1969-70, the assessee purchased goods from M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals and others and had a sales turnover of Rs. 18,191.77 through transfer of documents of title to the goods while the same were still in transit. The assessee, however, did not produce the declarations in form "C" and the certificates in form "E-1" before the assessment was completed in spite of the requirement of producing the same before the assessing officer. For the year, it had also shown inter-State sale in respect of Rs. 885.55 and had paid concessional rate of tax at three per cent, though the declaration in form "C" was not produced to support the claim for concessional rate. The Sales Tax Officer, in the circumstances, raised a demand on the turnover of Rs. 18,191.77 and assessed the turnover of Rs. 885.55 at the usual rate rejecting the claim for being assessed at the concessional rate. For the year 1970-71, the assessee had effected inter-State sale to the tune of Rs. 10,169.04 and had supported the transactions by declarations in form "C". It, however, claimed exemption under section 6(2)(b) of the CST Act in respect of a turnover of Rs. 85,416.52. In spite of opportunity being given by the assessing officer, appropriate declarations in form "C" were not produced and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer disallowed the claim and proceeded to tax the turnover. The assessee preferred appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and produced the relevant declarations in form "C" and certificates in form "E-1" in support of its various claims referred to above. The assessee contended that these forms in spite of its best of efforts could not be obtained prior to the completion of the assessment and, therefore, the same might be accepted at the stage of first appeal. The appellate authority, however, refused to act on these documents and confirmed the demands for both the years. In the second appeals before the learned Tribunal, the assessee contended that the explanation offered before the first appellate authority should have been accepted and the forms should have been received and consequential benefits should have been given. However, the learned Tribunal did not accept the claim of the assessee and upheld the order of the learned assessing officer. In the second appeals before the learned Tribunal, the assessee contended that the explanation offered before the first appellate authority should have been accepted and the forms should have been received and consequential benefits should have been given. However, the learned Tribunal did not accept the claim of the assessee and upheld the order of the learned assessing officer. This court after analysing various provisions of the CST Act and Rules framed thereunder and some judicial pronouncements has held that a registered dealer under the CST Act, who failed to produce declaration form in form "C" and in form "E-1" before the assessment was completed, has no right to produce the documents for the first time at the appellate stage and claim the concessional rate of tax. However, if the documents could not be obtained by the assessee in spite of his best efforts before the assessment was completed and the assessee gives before the appellate authority sufficient explanation why the documents could not be produced before the assessing authority before the assessment was completed, the appellate authority could accept the same and act upon them. In the present case, it is not disputed that originally the petitioner took the stand that it was not liable to pay Central sales tax on the machineries, equipments and spares transferred to its work sites situated outside the State on the ground of non-amendment of section 2(g) and section 6 of the CST Act pursuant to 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India. The assessing officer did not accept this claim of the petitioner and treated the said transaction as inter-State sale. In course of hearing of the first appeal, when the appellant found that the first appellate authority was also of the same view as that of the assessing officer, the appellant changed its stand and requested for reasonable opportunity to produce "C" declaration forms to avail concessional rate of tax if the transactions would be held to be taxable as inter-State sale. This stand of the petitioner finds place at page 10 of the first appeal order dated January 27, 1994 passed for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1990-91 where learned first appellate authority observed that after summing up of his argument, the authorised representative of the appellant took a fervent plea that in the event the alleged stocks transfer made by the appellant to its worksites were construed as inter-State sale, a reasonable opportunity to file the declaration in form "C" should be afforded to the appellant in accordance with law since the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the alleged transactions were factually and legally stock transfer transactions and therefore not exigible to any Central sales tax. Similarly, at page 5 of the first appeal order dated September 30, 1993 passed for the year 1989-90, the learned first appellate authority observed that it was further argued, without any prejudice, that there was no inter-State sale of the goods if the learned Sales Tax Officer wanted to tax the same, then the assessee should be allowed sufficient opportunity to collect statutory declarations in forms "C" and "D" from its customers to whom such goods had moved for use in execution of works contract to avail concessional rate of tax at four per cent. Again in the first appeal order dated October 13, 1993 passed for the year 1991-92 at page 4, the learned first appellate authority has also observed that it was submitted that the assessing officer should have allowed opportunity to the dealer - appellant to produce "C"/"D" forms as prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of despatch of goods to outside States from the factory at Kansbahal for the purpose of execution of works contract. This shows that only at the stage of hearing of the first appeal, the petitioner changed its stand accepting the view of the department that the transaction in question was in the nature of inter-State sale and therefore wanted to produce declarations in form "C" to avail concessional rate of tax. For this purpose, the dealer requested the first appellate authority to allow it reasonable opportunity for collection and production of declaration forms. For this purpose, the dealer requested the first appellate authority to allow it reasonable opportunity for collection and production of declaration forms. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner also took the same stand that if the transfer of machineries, equipments and spare parts from its factory to the worksites situated outside the State would be treated as inter-State sales, the declarations in form "C" produced before the learned Tribunal should have been accepted. In this regard, the position of law has been highlighted by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Saheny Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1985] 60 STC 301. In that case, the petitioner - company filed a writ petition in the honourable Supreme Court claiming that the sales effected by it were not sale in course of inter-State sale and prayed that in the event the transaction is held to be inter-State sales, the petitioner be permitted to avail of concessional rate of tax envisaged by section 8(1) read with section 8(4) of the CST Act. The honourable Supreme Court held the sale transaction under dispute as inter-State sales under section 3 of the CST Act and further held that reasonable opportunity should be given to the petitioner - company to collect "C" forms from the customer for the purpose of obtaining relief under section 8(1) read with section 8(4) since the question whether the transaction could be treated as inter-State sale was all along in doubt which was resolved only by the honourable Supreme Court. Under the provisions of sales tax law a registered dealer is entitled to effect inter-State sale at a concessional rate of tax on the strength of "C" declaration forms and also entitled to transfer goods from its manufacturing unit to its other place of business or agent situated outside the State otherwise than by way of sale on the strength of "F" declaration forms without payment of tax. The dealer cannot be deprived of the above benefit of tax available under the statute merely because the declaration forms are for the first time filed before the second appellate authority, if for some good reasons the same could not be produced before the assessing officer and first appellate authority. In Sahu Trading Co. The dealer cannot be deprived of the above benefit of tax available under the statute merely because the declaration forms are for the first time filed before the second appellate authority, if for some good reasons the same could not be produced before the assessing officer and first appellate authority. In Sahu Trading Co. [1983] 54 STC 122, this court categorically held that for good reasons, if declaration forms could not be produced before the first appellate authority and in suitable cases produced before the learned Tribunal, the same should be accepted and acted upon. In Oriental Chemical Industries [1979] 44 STC 241, this court also held that if the assessee gives before the appellate authority sufficient explanation why the documents could not be produced before the assessment was completed, the appellate authority could accept the same and act upon them. The learned Tribunal in the present case is also of the view that the dealer has got the right of filing such declaration forms before it, if it could not file them before the lower forums. But the dealer is bound to assign reason(s) why those could not be filed before both the lower forums. The learned Tribunal further held that the petition dated August 7, 2001 filed by the dealer disclosed the reason that declaration forms were received by the dealer after hearing of the first appeals was completed. From the order of the learned Tribunal, it is revealed that the reason assigned by the dealer in its petition dated August 7, 2001 was not disputed by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal is not justified in insisting on production of further documentary evidence in support of the contention of the petitioner that the declaration forms were received by it after the hearing of the first appeal, for the purpose of accepting those declaration forms. For the reasons discussed above, we answer the first and third question in negative and second question in affirmative. We thus answer all the three questions in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. Since the Tribunal has not examined the correctness of the declaration forms produced before it, now it shall examine the same and for this purpose the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The batch of tax revisions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. A. K. Ganguly, C.J. - I agree.