Form III-A is only prima facie evidence in sales tax; authorities may rebut it with other material.

Form III-A under rule 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules operates only as prima facie evidence that an oil-seeds sale was for resale in the same condition, and it does not make the certificate conclusive proof. Section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act continues to place the burden on the dealer to rebut the presumption that every sale is to a consumer. Sales tax authorities may examine other relevant material to test the genuineness and correctness of the certificate, but a mere fact that the purchaser is a mill does not by itself displace a duly furnished certificate. On the stated facts, the certificates could not be rejected on that basis alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether a certificate in Form III-A under rule 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules conclusively establishes that a sale of oil-seeds was for resale in the same condition and not for consumption, and whether the sales tax authorities may look into other material to test the correctness of such certificate.

Analysis: Section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act creates a presumption that every sale is to a consumer unless the dealer proves otherwise. Rule 12-A provides a prescribed mode of rebuttal by furnishing Form III-A, but it does not override the statutory presumption or alter the burden placed by section 3-AA(2). The certificate in Form III-A is not conclusive proof; it is prima facie evidence of resale in the same condition. The sales tax authorities may examine other relevant material to determine whether the certificate is genuine and whether its contents are correct. A mere circumstance that the purchaser is a mill which may consume the goods does not by itself displace the presumption attached to a duly furnished certificate.

Conclusion: Form III-A is only prima facie evidence and not conclusive evidence. The department may rebut it by other material, but on the facts found the certificates could not be rejected merely because the purchasers were mills.

Final Conclusion: The legal position favoured the assessee on the evidentiary value of the prescribed certificate, and the references were answered against the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A certificate prescribed as the statutory mode of rebutting a tax presumption operates as prima facie evidence only, and remains open to rebuttal by the revenue unless the statute expressly makes it conclusive.

---