Valid election for purchase tax relief must be proved in the prescribed manner, or liability under section 10(a) continues.

A dealer could avoid purchase tax under section 10A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 only by proving a valid election made in the prescribed form, manner and period. The evidence did not establish that any such application had been filed: the alleged acknowledgement was unreliable, the initials did not match the muster roll, the application was not traceable, and the conduct before the assessing and revisional authorities was inconsistent with a genuine election. No valid election was proved, so liability to purchase tax under section 10(a) continued and the challenge to the assessment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were liable to purchase tax under section 10(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, or were relieved of that liability by a valid election under section 10A of the Act.

Analysis: Section 10A(1) permitted a registered dealer liable to purchase tax to elect either to pay purchase tax on the purchases or sales tax on the sale of the goods when sold without processing or alteration. Section 10A(2) required that the election be made by an application in the prescribed form and manner within the prescribed period. The evidence did not establish that any such application had in fact been made. The alleged acknowledgement did not inspire confidence, the initials did not tally with the muster roll, the application was not traceable, and the applicants' conduct before the assessing authority and revisional authority was inconsistent with the existence of a genuine election.

Conclusion: No valid election under section 10A was proved. The applicants remained liable to purchase tax under section 10(a), and the challenge to the assessment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer can avoid purchase tax under section 10A only by proving a valid and timely election made in the prescribed manner; where such election is not established, liability under section 10(a) continues.

---