Recognition certificate under sales tax law cannot be restricted to date of issue where statute permits later issuance.

Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was read as allowing concessional tax treatment where a recognition certificate was obtained in respect of the relevant goods, without requiring that the certificate exist at the exact time of purchase. The Court held that the phrase "in respect thereof" was broad enough to cover a later-issued certificate linked to the turnover in question, and that a contrary reading would add words to the statute. Rule 25-A(5), by limiting the certificate's effect to the date of issue, was therefore ultra vires section 4-B. Concessional relief remained available on the basis of a certificate relating back to the application date.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 25-A(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, in so far as it made a recognition certificate effective only from the date of issue, was inconsistent with section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and therefore ultra vires.

Analysis: Section 4-B granted concessional tax treatment where a dealer held a recognition certificate issued in respect of the relevant goods. The language did not expressly require contemporaneity between the purchases and the date of issue of the certificate. The expression "in respect thereof" was sufficiently wide to include a certificate obtained later, so long as it related to the turnover in question. A construction insisting on a certificate existing at the very time of purchase would add words to the statute. The rule limiting effect to the date of issue was therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme, and the later amendment of 1978 confirmed that the certificate was intended to operate from the date of application.

Conclusion: Rule 25-A(5), insofar as it confined the certificate's effect to the date of issue, was held to be ultra vires section 4-B, and the concessional relief was available to the dealer on the basis of a later-issued certificate relating back to the application.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the High Court's view invalidating the restrictive operation of the rule was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language does not require contemporaneous possession of a certificate at the time of purchase, a rule cannot validly restrict the certificate's efficacy to the date of issue if that restriction defeats the scheme and purpose of the enabling provision.

---