ORDER R. S. GARG :- By this writ petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who had sold certain spares for repair of the transformers used by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for generation/distribution of the electrical energy, has challenged the reassessment order dated November 28, 2005 (annexure P4) passed under section 28(1) of the Commercial Tax Act in case No. AG/Audit/03/04 for the period between 2000-01. The revisional order dated February 8, 2006 (annexure P6) passed in Revision Case No. 20/State/2006 for the period between April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001 passed by the Deputy Divisional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Satna and has also challenged the coercive recovery proceedings under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 commenced under notice dated March 23, 2006 (annexure P7) issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ward B, Rewa and Additional Tahsildar, Rewa. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is carrying on the business of supply of transformers and spare parts, etc., and he also undertook repair of the transformers in which certain spares are used and utilized. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board invited tenders for supply of transformers and placed orders after acceptance of the tenders. According to the petitioner, it was clearly stated in the tender and supply order that the commercial tax shall be charged at four per cent and surcharge will also be payable for which the Board shall issue necessary declaration in form No. 32 in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Tax Act. The petitioner undertook repair in respect of the various transformers and supplied the spares. For purchase of these spares, the Board issued declaration form No. 32 claiming concessional rate of tax on such purchases by the Board as the purchasing dealer. In the tax return filed by the petitioner, the tax was paid at concessional rate and at the time of the assessment, the petitioner produced all the declarations furnished to him by the Board. In the assessment order for the year 2000-01, claim for concessional rate of tax at four per cent and surcharge was accepted vide order dated December 26, 2003, however, on an audit objection relating to rate of tax applicable to such sales the case was directed to be reopened. In the assessment order for the year 2000-01, claim for concessional rate of tax at four per cent and surcharge was accepted vide order dated December 26, 2003, however, on an audit objection relating to rate of tax applicable to such sales the case was directed to be reopened. The petitioner objected to the proceedings and contended that the rate of tax originally charged was proper and as the declarations were supplied to him by the purchasing dealer, he was obliged to accept the said declarations. However, the letters issued by the Board were also produced along with circular issued by the Commissioner. The assessing officer however rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, he preferred a revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed with the observation that as the spares are not included in entry No. 35 of Part 4 of the Schedule II appended to the Commercial Tax Act, the petitioner was obliged to pay tax at eight per cent and the surcharge. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the assessing authority and the revisional authority, is before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the provisions contained in rule 67 of the Rules framed under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, section 21 and section 17 read with section 9 of the Commercial Tax Act, submitted that once the purchasing dealer furnishes a declaration/certificate in form No. 32 then the selling dealer is obliged to accept such form because for him the presumption that such concessional rate is applicable to the purchasing dealer is irrebuttable. It is also submitted that once the purchasing dealer furnishes declaration in form No. 32 then in accordance with rule 67 the selling dealer is obliged to accept the declaration. It is also submitted that even otherwise the liability to pay tax would be on the purchasing dealer if it is found or held that the declaration issued by him was wrong, bad or was contrary to the facts. It is also submitted that even otherwise the liability to pay tax would be on the purchasing dealer if it is found or held that the declaration issued by him was wrong, bad or was contrary to the facts. Shri Vivek Agrawal, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that every selling dealer is obliged to look into the legality/validity of the declaration given under form No. 32 and in case he fails in exercise of due diligence and does not verify from the purchasing dealer that such concessional rate is applicable to him then the selling dealer is liable to pay tax because the liability to pay tax is firstly upon the selling dealer. For proper appreciation of the controversy in issue, we have to refer to section 9 which relates to levy of tax and application of the concessional rate of tax. Section 9, sub-section (2) reads as under : "9. Levy of tax. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), the tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied on the taxable turnover relating to goods specified in Schedule II at the rate mentioned in corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Schedule. (2) Subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed and to the provisions of sub-clause (iii) of clause (w) of section 2, - (a) the tax payable by a registered dealer on the sale of any goods specified in Second Schedule except the goods specified in Schedule III, to another registered dealer for use by him inside the State, - (i) as raw material or as incidental goods, in the manufacture or in processing of goods or in the mining of goods, declared tax-free under section 15 or exempted in whole under section 17 and sold by him - (a) in the State of Madhya Pradesh, or (b) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, or (c) in the course of export out of the Territory of India, or (ii) in the generation or distribution of electrical energy or any other form of power, shall be levied at the concessional rate of two per cent. (b)(i) the tax payable by a registered dealer on the sale of any goods specified in Schedule II except the goods specified in Schedule III, to another registered dealer holding a recognition certificate under section 25 for use by him as raw material or as incidental goods in the manufacture or processing or mining of taxable goods other than coal; or (ii) the tax payable by registered dealer on the sale of any goods specified in Schedule II to another registered dealer holding a recognition certificate under section 25 for use by him as raw material or incidental goods in the mining of coal; for sale by him in the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India, shall be levied at the concessional rate of two per cent : Provided that when the tax on the sale of such raw material or incidental goods is payable under sub-section (1) at a rate lower than two per cent, the tax payable under clause (a) or clause (b) shall be calculated at such lower rate or at such other lower rate as may be notified by the State Government." According to section 9, sub-section (2), clause (a)(ii), when the goods are sold for generation or distribution of electrical energy or any other form of power then the tax has to be levied at the concessional rate of four per cent. Undisputedly, the transformers are used for purposes of distribution of electrical energy. The question for consideration is that whether the spare parts used for repair of the transformers can be considered as the raw material or the incidental goods. Once the purchasing dealer issues a certificate clearly saying or declaring that the goods purchased are for consumption or use as raw material/incidental goods by him and that the said goods are specified as raw material/incidental goods in his registration certificate then the certificate in form No. 32 would become absolutely final. A selling dealer on face of such certificate cannot require the purchasing dealer to show him the registration certificate specifying the sold goods as raw material or incidental goods. The moment a declaration in form No. 32 is supplied or provided to the selling dealer then for the said selling dealer the matter comes to an end. A selling dealer on face of such certificate cannot require the purchasing dealer to show him the registration certificate specifying the sold goods as raw material or incidental goods. The moment a declaration in form No. 32 is supplied or provided to the selling dealer then for the said selling dealer the matter comes to an end. In the matter of Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1986] 62 STC 112, the Supreme Court had observed that whenever a certificate is issued by a purchasing dealer then such certificate would provide an irrebuttable presumption insofar as the selling dealer is concerned. The Supreme Court further observed that the sales tax authorities would have no jurisdiction to examine such certificate. In view of the Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal [1986] 62 STC 112 (SC), the selling dealer shall not be obliged or bound to go beyond declaration issued in form No. 32. In the said matter, the Supreme Court had further observed that the genuineness of the certificate and the declaration may be examined by the taxing authorities but they would not be entitled to examine the correctness or truthfulness of the statements made therein. The Supreme Court was also of the opinion that the taxing authority may examine whether the certificate was issued in collusion or was forged or fabricated but not enquire whether the purchasing dealer had subsequently sold the goods or consumed them. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to hold that the goods so sold by the selling dealer to the purchasing dealer would not come in the definition of raw material or incidental goods. Once the purchasing dealer declares that the goods have been purchased by him for consumption or use as raw material or as incidental goods then the matter becomes final for the selling dealer. Section 21 of the Act provides the liability of a dealer who is purchasing the exempted goods. Once the purchasing dealer declares that the goods have been purchased by him for consumption or use as raw material or as incidental goods then the matter becomes final for the selling dealer. Section 21 of the Act provides the liability of a dealer who is purchasing the exempted goods. If it is found by the authorities that the purchasing dealer has not used the goods for the specified purpose or within the specified time or he does not dispose of the goods in the specified manner or within the specified time then such purchasing dealer shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the full rate mentioned in column 3 of Schedule II and penalty as provided under section 21 of the Act. A perusal of section 21 of the Act would also make it clear that a purchasing dealer if does not use the goods for the specified purpose then the liability to pay tax and the amount of penalty would be on the head of the purchasing dealer. Reference to rule 67 shall also be necessary because rule 67 clearly provides that 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 Rules made or any notification issued thereunder. A feeble attempt was made by Shri Vivek Agrawal, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, to submit that the declaration should be in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made or any notification issued thereunder and, therefore, the provision if is strictly construed would cast a liability upon the selling dealer to verify that such declaration has been issued or furnished in accordance with some provision of the Act or the Rules made or any notification issued thereunder. In our opinion, a fair reading and understanding of rule 67 would make it clear that a certificate is to be issued by the registered dealer in accordance with any provision of the Act or the Rules made or any notification issued thereunder. The liability/responsibility is upon the purchasing dealer to issue such certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or notification. The liability/responsibility is upon the purchasing dealer to issue such certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or notification. The law nowhere provides any liability/responsibility upon the selling dealer to look into the correctness of the declaration so made except in cases where there is a fraud or collusion or the declaration is forged or fabricated. The assessing authority cannot require a selling dealer in view of rule 67 to look into the correctness of the statements made in the declaration issued under form No. 32. In the present case, undisputedly the goods were supplied by the petitioner and he had charged the concessional rate of tax in view of the declaration supplied by the purchasing dealer. If that be so then the original assessment made by the assessing authority was absolutely justified and the assessment could not be reopened on the basis of an audit objection. The approach of the authority that particular items are not included in the entry, therefore, the concessional rate would not be applicable, could not be used as a handle against the petitioner for reopening of the assessment. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the orders of reassessment passed by the assessing officer and confirmed by the revisional authority are bad. The said orders deserve to be and are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.