J.S. Verma, Ag. C.J.

This is a reference under Section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, to decide the following question of law, namely :

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in accepting secondary evidence, i.e., photostat copy of the C form and certificate of the sales tax authority of the issuing State, to allow the benefit of concessional rate of tax to the appellant on his inter-State sales when rules 8 to 8F under the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957, do not provide admission of such secondary evidence

The material facts are these: The relevant period of assessment is 10th November, 1970, to 18th October, 1971. The dealer claimed levy of sales tax at concessional rate on sale of "tendu patta" by it for the amount of Rs. 1,13,182. This claim by the dealer was rejected on the ground that it was not supported by production of a declaration in form C as required by the statutory provisions. The dealer had merely produced a photostat copy of the counterfoil of form C retained by the purchasing dealer and neither the original nor the duplicate which were with it as the selling dealer. The dealers contention was that the original as well as the duplicate had been lost and, therefore, it was entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate merely on production of the photostat copy of the counterfoil retained by the purchasing dealer. The assessing authority having rejected this contention, the dealer preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, which was also rejected on the ground that no valid declaration in form C as required by Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, had been produced at any time by the dealer. The further appeal of the dealer to the Tribunal had, however, succeeded and this contention of the dealer has been accepted. Aggrieved by the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, this reference was sought by the Commissioner of Sales Tax which has been made to answer the above-quoted question of law.

In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer , State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. and the subsequent decisions following that view, it is settled that in order to claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, the dealer must furnish a declaration in the prescribed form C in the prescribed manner. Unless that is done, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed by the dealer cannot be given. The Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Companys case noticed the stringency of the provisions which permit giving of the concessional rate only when it is claimed in the manner prescribed and held that the benefit being made available, subject to the condition laid down, the person claiming that benefit can avail it only on fulfilling the condition in the manner prescribed by the statutory provision. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that unless the dealer has satisfied the prescribed condition in the prescribed manner, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed cannot be given.

Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act requires the dealer selling the goods to furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner, a declaration duly filled and signed by the purchasing dealer containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from a prescribed authority. Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, prescribes the form of the declaration referred to in Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of thewhich is given in form C and Sub-rule (3) thereof also prescribes the manner of claiming the benefit of the concessional rate "where a declaration form furnished by the dealer purchasing the goods or the certificate furnished by the Government has been lost". The procedure prescribed for such an eventuality in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 is the production of a duplicate of the form along with the prescribed declaration mentioned therein. This is the only manner in which the selling dealer can claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax in case the declaration in form C is lost and the manner so prescribed does not permit the benefit being given on production of the counterfoil retained by the purchasing dealer. It may also be mentioned that in addition to the duplicate of the form, a declaration in the prescribed manner is also required to be produced at the time of assessment for claiming the benefit where the declaration in form C has been lost. Admittedly, in the present case, the dealer did not claim the benefit of the concessional rate in the manner prescribed by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 inasmuch as it did not produce a duplicate of the form or even the declaration prescribed therein. This being so, the benefit claimed by the dealer on mere production of a photostat copy of the counterfoil of declaration in form C could not be given in accordance with law. The contrary conclusion reached by the Tribunal was, therefore, not justified.

We find that a similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Orissa Polish Works [1970] 26 STC 480 [LQ/OriHC/1970/56] and also by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bhoomi Reddy [1970] 26 STC 444. [LQ/APHC/1970/4] Learned counsel for the dealer referred to us a decision of the Madras High Court in Shansshia Oil Mills v. State of Madras [1967] 20 STC 481. [LQ/MadHC/1967/227] We find that the question involved for decision by us was not considered and decided therein with reference to the relevant statutory provisions. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider this decision at any length.

Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the department and against the dealer by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in giving the benefit of the concessional rate of tax to the dealer on the only material produced by it. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.