Mandatory proof for sales tax exemption cannot be replaced by secondary evidence or relaxed on hardship grounds.

A taxing exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 required strict production of the original prescribed declaration forms; secondary evidence, counterfoils, or other substitute proof could not replace that mandatory statutory mode of compliance. The court also treated the proviso and rule 27A(1)(b) as valid revenue-protective measures, holding that hardship or alleged loss of forms did not amount to legal impossibility and did not justify relaxation of the requirement. Section 21A was only an enabling provision for evidence and did not override the specific proof condition for exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be claimed without producing the original declaration forms when those forms were alleged to have been lost. (ii) Whether the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) and rule 27A(1)(b) infringed Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or could be relaxed on the ground of impossibility and hardship.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be claimed without producing the original declaration forms when those forms were alleged to have been lost.

Analysis: The proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) required, in plain and imperative terms, that a duly filled and signed declaration on the prescribed form be furnished in the prescribed manner. The statutory scheme, reinforced by rule 27A, treated the declaration forms as essential safeguards against misuse and tax evasion. Section 21A, which empowered the authority to summon witnesses and compel documents, was only an enabling provision and did not override the specific mode of proof prescribed by the proviso. Secondary evidence, counterfoils, or other proof could not substitute for production of the original declaration forms.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption failed where the original declaration forms were not produced; the requirement was mandatory and could not be satisfied by secondary evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) and rule 27A(1)(b) infringed Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or could be relaxed on the ground of impossibility and hardship.

Analysis: The proviso was enacted to protect revenue and prevent evasion, and a taxing provision does not become unconstitutional merely because compliance may cause hardship in individual cases. The alleged loss of forms did not amount to impossibility of performance in the legal sense, since the loss was attributable to the assessee's own lapse and not to an act of God or enemy action. The statutory requirement therefore remained binding, and the authorities were not bound to dispense with it or to accept alternative proof.

Conclusion: The proviso and rule 27A(1)(b) were upheld as valid, and no constitutional infringement or excusing impossibility was established.

Final Conclusion: The statutory condition for exemption remained controlling, and the assessee could not displace the prescribed proof requirement by reliance on hardship, secondary evidence, or constitutional challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a specific and mandatory mode of proof for claiming exemption, that mode must be strictly complied with and cannot be replaced by secondary evidence or relaxed on grounds of hardship unless the statute itself provides otherwise.

---