Sales tax deduction certificates: filing with the return was directory, so later production in revision could still be accepted.

A procedural requirement that certificates accompany the return under rule 15(4) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was treated as directory, not an absolute condition for claiming deduction under rule 24(ii), because the assessment scheme under section 18 permits the assessing authority to call for further evidence where the return is incomplete or incorrect. The certificates could therefore be accepted at the revisional stage, and a refusal based on the mistaken view that they were unavailable at assessment was unsustainable. The cited Revenue precedent was distinguished on the basis of different statutory wording and facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 15(4) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 made it mandatory for the certificates under rule 24(ii) to accompany the return, and whether the revisional authority could refuse to accept those certificates when produced before it.

Analysis: The assessment scheme under section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 contemplates that if the return is not complete or correct, the assessing authority may call for evidence, documents, and further material before making the assessment. Read in that setting, rule 15(4) was held not to exclude later production of the certificates or to make their filing with the return an inflexible condition for claiming deduction under rule 24(ii). On the facts, the assessing authority had rejected the claim on the threshold view that the sales were not sales of medicines, so the question of calling for certificates at that stage did not arise. The revisional authority therefore acted under a mistaken assumption in treating the certificates as unavailable at the assessment stage, and the case relied on by the Revenue was distinguished because it turned on the wording of section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and on the opportunity already afforded there.

Conclusion: The requirement in rule 15(4) was not mandatory in the sense contended for by the Revenue, and the certificates could be accepted in revision; the petitioner succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law after considering the certificates.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessment scheme allows the authority to call for further evidence, a procedural rule requiring certificates to accompany the return is directory unless the statute clearly makes earlier filing an absolute condition for the substantive deduction.

---