Rebate entitlement under sales tax rules depends on registration and timely filing, not later-discovered suppression in accounts.

A registered manufacturer of groundnut oil who filed Form A-9 within time was entitled to rebate under rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, because registration and timely filing were the essential statutory conditions. The proviso to rule 18(3-A) permitted condonation only for delay or omission in filing the statement, but only where true and correct accounts were maintained. Although the assessee had suppressed turnover and kept incorrect accounts, the rebate provision did not make entitlement depend on the correctness of the return or absence of suppression. The later discovery of incorrect accounts therefore did not justify denial of rebate, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a registered manufacturer of groundnut oil who submitted Form A-9 within time but had suppressed turnover or maintained incorrect accounts was nevertheless entitled to rebate under rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules.

Analysis: Rule 18 made registration as a manufacturer and timely submission of Form A-9 the essential conditions for the rebate under rule 5(1)(k). The proviso to sub-rule (3-A) empowered condonation only of delay or omission in filing the statement, provided true and correct accounts were maintained. The rebate provision itself did not make entitlement depend on the correctness of the return or on absence of suppression. Once the statutory conditions for registration and timely filing were satisfied, later discovery of suppression did not authorise denial of the rebate.

Conclusion: The assessee remained entitled to the rebate, and the revision failed.

---