ORDER : R.SUDHAKAR, J. The above Tax Case (Revisions) are filed by the assessee as against the order dated 30.04.2015 made in T.A.Nos.3, 1, 2, 5, 7, 4 and 8 of 2015 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Puducherry for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2010-11 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner/assessee in T.C.(R)Nos.51 to 53 of 2015 originally known as Vista Security Technics Pvt. Ltd. got merged with Siemens Limited in the year 2010. The said merger was intimated by the assessee to the respondent/Commercial Taxes Department by letter dated 20.5.2011. For the assessment years in question, after a period ranging from 6 to 4 years, pre-assessment notices were issued to the assessee by the Assessing Authority on 10.04.2014 (T.C.(R)Nos.51 to 54 of 2015), 20.5.2014 (T.C.(R)No.54 of 2015), 24.06.2014 (T.C.(R) No.55 of 2015), 02.12.2013 (T.C.(R) No.56 of 2015), and 24.06.2014 (T.C.(R) No.57 of 2015). On receipt of the said pre-assessment notices, the assessee filed reply requesting one month time to produce the statutory declaration forms, namely, 'C/F/I' forms as the case may be, as against the 7 days time granted by the Assessing Authority. The said request letter was received by the Department, however, in respect of three assessment years i.e., T.C.(R)Nos.51 to 53 of 2015, no reply, either granting time as requested by the assessee or denying the same, was sent by the Department. Insofar as the balance four assessment years (T.C.(R) Nos.54 to 57 of 2015) were concerned, time was given as requested by the assessee. However, the assessee failed to produce the same before completing the final assessment. As a result, in all the above cases, assessment orders were passed demanding higher rate of tax on the ground that the assessee had not produced the necessary statutory declaration forms. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed the statutory declaration forms, but the same was not accepted on the ground that the assessee had not shown any sufficient cause to file the statutory declaration forms belatedly. In the result, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals. As against the said order, the assessee pursued the matter once again before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee produced the statutory declaration forms. In the result, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals. As against the said order, the assessee pursued the matter once again before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee produced the statutory declaration forms. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, concurred with the view of the first Appellate Authority, thereby dismissed the appeals holding that the assessee had not shown any sufficient cause to file the statutory declaration forms belatedly. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present Tax Case (Revisions) are filed by the assessee. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee submits that sufficient cause was shown by the assessee before the Assessing Authority even prior to the issuance of pre-assessment notice by letter dated 20.5.2011, wherein they have intimated that since the company got merged, the entire working of the company is under re-jig and sought time to submit the statutory declaration forms. She further submits that the assessee had submitted the declaration forms before the first Appellate Authority as well as before the Tribunal, which Authority can receive these documents, but failed to receive the same only on the ground of not showing sufficient cause. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee is that at the first instance, the assessee sought time to produce the documents and the Authority having accepted the letter failed to disclose whether they are granting time or refusing it and such action caused prejudice to the assessee. 6. In support of her contention, she relied upon the decisions in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company reported in [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad); J.B.Leather Fertilizers and Company V. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore (Rural) reported in [2002] 126 stc 38 and Esjyapee Impex (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [2011] 42 vst 61 (Mad). 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. It is seen that for the three assessment years, the Assessing Authority without even giving reply to the request made by the assessee seeking time to produce the declaration forms, whether he is granting time or not, passed the assessment order. For the balance four years, the Assessing Authority granted time to produce the declaration forms. 8. It is seen that for the three assessment years, the Assessing Authority without even giving reply to the request made by the assessee seeking time to produce the declaration forms, whether he is granting time or not, passed the assessment order. For the balance four years, the Assessing Authority granted time to produce the declaration forms. It appears, the petitioner, in terms of proviso to Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, had shown sufficient cause for not producing the statutory declaration forms at the time of final assessment stating that due to the merger, they were in the process of re-working of the new company; the forms had to be obtained from the former employees of Vista Securities and the persons handling the records left the service. The fact that they have taken all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement of submitting the statutory declaration forms, though belatedly, is evident from the fact that before the first Appellate Authority they had produced the statutory declaration forms, but the same was not accepted by the first appellate authority. But the fact remains that the cause for not submitting the forms at the initial stage is justified in the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, we are inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the production of these documents runs to many assessment years and the pre-assessment notice was issued after a period ranging from 6 to 4 years. Hence, in the circumstances, the assessee sought for time to produce the documents. It is not as if the assessee in this case was diffident or deliberately avoided the authorities in producing the statutory declaration forms. They have produced the statutory declaration forms before the first Appellate Authority, who has power to receive such documents. Since the company got merged with Siemens, they could not trace all the records and could not obtain the relevant C forms from the former company. We hold that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause before the Appellate Authority empowered to receive the declarations. 9. There is ample power for the authority to grant extension of time. In the instant case, we find that there is justification for invocation of the powers under the proviso to Rule 12(7). We hold that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause before the Appellate Authority empowered to receive the declarations. 9. There is ample power for the authority to grant extension of time. In the instant case, we find that there is justification for invocation of the powers under the proviso to Rule 12(7). The petitioners' explanation that it needed time to obtain the statutory declaration forms from the former company consequent to merger is a just reason in the facts of the present case. For better understanding, it is apposite to extract Rule 12(7) and the proviso to the said Rule of the Central Sales Tax, which reads as follows: “ 12.(7) The declaration in Form C or Form F or the certificate in Form E-I or Form E-II shall be furnished to the prescribed authority with in three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates: Provided that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate with in the aforesaid time, that authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit." 10. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company reported in [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad), this Court, while dealing with the power of the Appellate Authority to receive the 'C' forms, held as follows: "The Tribunal has power to receive C forms at the time of the appeal for sufficient cause. The Tribunal can then process to the next step of applying the concessional rate of tax to the turnover converted by the C forms. Or the Tribunal may remand the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The remand may be for the specific purpose of going into the question of sufficient cause. The remand may also be loaded with the finding by the Tribunal that there had been sufficient cause, leaving the scrutiny of the C forms alone to be undertaken or remand. Or the Tribunal may remand the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The remand may be for the specific purpose of going into the question of sufficient cause. The remand may also be loaded with the finding by the Tribunal that there had been sufficient cause, leaving the scrutiny of the C forms alone to be undertaken or remand. The Tribunal may, if satisfied about the sufficient cause set aside even the assessment order, and direct the assessing authority to re-do the assessment, in which even there would be no occasion for the assessing authority to go into any question of delay in filing the C forms for with the setting aside of the assessment the whole thing is once again at large." 11. In the case of State Of H.P. and others vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another reported in 142 STC 1 (SC), the Supreme Court while dealing with the belated filing of statutory forms held as follows: "It was urged on behalf of the appellant-State that declaration forms under the Central Act were not filed within the time and/or were defective. That does not in reality amount to non-compliance of a statutory provision. The respondent No.1-company was claiming exemption and, therefore, had not filed the declaration forms. Some of the forms which were filed were treated to be defective. Undisputedly, before the revisional authority a prayer was made for grant of opportunity to rectify the defects, if any. That was turned down. It is to be noted that under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (in short the `Registration Rules') the declaration form can be filed at a subsequent point of time and not necessarily along with returns. On an application being made before the Assessing Officer the exemption can be granted. The object of the Rule is to ensure that the assessee is not denied a benefit which is available to it under law on a technical plea. The Assessing Officer is empowered to grant time. That means that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision. In a given case even the declaration forms can be filed before the appellate authority as an appeal is continuation of the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer is empowered to grant time. That means that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision. In a given case even the declaration forms can be filed before the appellate authority as an appeal is continuation of the assessment proceedings. In a given case, if the appellate authority is satisfied that assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause which disenabled him to file the forms in time, it can be accepted. It can also be accepted as additional evidence in support of the claim for deduction. In the instant case, respondent No.1-company made a specific request before the revisional authority which was turned down. Therefore, the question of any noncompliance with the relevant statutes does not arise. It was noted by this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 173 that even in a given case, an assessee can be given an opportunity to collect Declaration Forms and furnish them to the assessing authority if the challenge of the assessee to taxability of a particular transaction is turned down." 12. The ratio in the above-said decision will enure to the benefit of the assessee. It is to be noted that the approach of the Department should be to ensure that what the assessee is rightfully entitled to should be extended to the assessee without harping on technicalities. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remand the matters back to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh orders. 13. In the result, the impugned orders of the Tribunal stand set aside and the above Tax Case (Revisions) stand allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessment after receiving the necessary statutory declarations and complete the assessment on merits. No costs. The petitioners are directed to submit the necessary statutory declaration forms before the Assessing Officer along with a copy of this order.