SRINIVASAN, J.

Out of the turnover of Rs. 53, 742 returned by the assessee-respondent, Rs. 34, 560 was covered by C Forms. The balance of the turnover was not covered by C Forms and the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, accordingly assessed this latter part of the turnover at seven per cent. under the Central Sales Tax Act. An appeal was taken by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before whom the assessee admitted that the C Forms relevant to the turnover of Rs. 19, 000 and odd assessed at seven per cent. had been received only after the final assessment was over. The final assessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in this case was on 15th June, 1960, and the relevant forms were produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 27th July, 1960. No explanation was given before the appellate authority for failure to produce these C Forms earlier. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner therefore took the view that the transactions covered by this turnover of Rs. 19, 000 and odd had to be treated as sales made to unregistered dealers and confirmed the levy of tax on this turnover at seven per cent.

On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal took note of the fact that contradictory versions were given by the assessee for his failure to submit the C forms along with the return, but nevertheless thought that as the C Forms had been submitted before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that officer could have accepted these C Forms and that there was no justification by him to hold that the sales would be deemed as those made to unregistered dealers in the face of the C Forms now made available to him. The Tribunal proceeded to condone the delay in submitting the C Forms and directed the turnover covered by them to be assessed at one per cent. instead of at seven per cent.The State is the petitioner, and the point that has been raised is that the acceptance of the C Forms filed in the circumstances stated is not in accordance with law. It is contended by the State that there is a specific time limit fixed in the rules and that there are no provisions which enable the departmental officers or the Tribunal to condone the delay in the submission of the C Forms and that there is in fact no discretion given to these officers to condone such delays.

On a careful examination of the relevant provisions, we are satisfied that the contentions of the petitioner are sound. That the transactions in the present case are sales in the course of inter-State trade is not in dispute. The taxation of such sales is governed by section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. We shall confine ourselves to only those parts of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules. Section 8(1) provides that tax under the Act shall be at one per cent. on the turnover of a dealer who, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, "sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3)". The goods covered by the transactions in the present case are claimed to be those described in sub-section (3)(b) of section 8, that is,

"goods other than declared goods or goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of the goods for sale ..." *

It is not in dispute that the goods in the transactions are goods other than declared goods. It should follow that in order to qualify for the rebate of tax of one per cent. laid down in section 8(1), these goods should be goods which are specified in the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer as being intended for one of the purposes mentioned in sub-section (3)(b). If the goods covered by the inter-State sale are not goods which come within the description of section 8(3)(b), it shoul