Strict compliance with prescribed declaration forms governs sales-tax exemption; secondary evidence cannot replace actual production.

A sales-tax exemption conditioned on furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form and manner requires strict compliance: proof that the form was once issued does not replace actual production of the form. Secondary evidence, hardship from loss, or oral or documentary substitutes cannot satisfy the statutory condition precedent. Powers to summon dealers or records under section 21-A do not override that substantive requirement or create a right to duplicate declarations. The proviso was also treated as a permissible regulatory safeguard aimed at preventing misuse of exemption and protecting revenue, and the Article 19(1)(g) challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be granted without production of the prescribed declaration form and on secondary evidence of its issue. (ii) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could be compelled under section 21-A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to summon the purchasing dealers and their records so as to establish the lost declarations. (iii) Whether the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii), as applied, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be granted without production of the prescribed declaration form and on secondary evidence of its issue.

Analysis: The exemption was made conditional by the statute itself upon furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner. The Rules reinforced that requirement by insisting on production on demand of the prescribed declaration form. The Court held that the condition attached to the exemption was a statutory condition precedent and had to be strictly fulfilled. Even assuming that secondary evidence could be received for some purposes, proof that a declaration had once been issued would not satisfy the statutory requirement of actual production of the prescribed form. Hardship caused by loss of the form could not justify reading words into the provision.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be allowed on secondary evidence and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could be compelled under section 21-A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 to summon the purchasing dealers and their records so as to establish the lost declarations.

Analysis: Section 21-A conferred powers to compel attendance, examination, and production of documents, but those powers could not override the substantive requirement that the declaration form itself be furnished in the prescribed manner. Since the statute did not provide for duplicate declaration forms as of right and the relevant condition for exemption remained actual production of the form, calling for books, counterfoils, or oral evidence would not cure the defect. The issue of duplicate forms was treated as a matter between dealers, not a power enforceable against them by the tax authorities.

Conclusion: The authorities were not bound to summon witnesses or documents for the purpose of substituting secondary proof for the missing declaration forms, and no such compulsion was available to the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii), as applied, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that Article 19(1)(g) protected citizens and not corporations. In any event, the requirement of production of a duly signed declaration form was directed to preventing misuse of a valuable exemption and to securing revenue collection. The condition was treated as a permissible regulatory safeguard and not as an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme required strict compliance with the prescribed declaration-form procedure for sales-tax exemption, and neither alleged loss of the forms nor secondary evidence could displace that requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax exemption is made conditional upon furnishing a prescribed document in a prescribed manner, the document itself must be produced and the condition cannot be satisfied by secondary evidence or equitable considerations.

---