Mandatory deposit requirement under sales tax rules prevails over an inconsistent circular extending time for exemption applications.

Rule 20-B(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was treated as mandatory, requiring the prescribed deposit to accompany the exemption application within the stipulated time. The phrase "unless otherwise provided" was read as referring only to a provision made by a rule under the Act, not to an administrative circular. Rule 82 permitted the Commissioner to issue procedural instructions only so far as they were consistent with the Act and the Rules. A circular extending time to cure deficiency in the exemption fee was therefore inconsistent with rule 20-B(a), had no statutory force, and was not binding on the Sales Tax Officer; the referred question was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether a circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax could extend the time for compliance with rule 20-B(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules and bind the Sales Tax Officer.

Analysis: Rule 20-B(a) required the prescribed deposit to accompany the exemption application within the stipulated time, and the expression "unless otherwise provided" was held to refer to a provision made by a rule under the Act, not to an administrative instruction. Rule 82 empowered the Commissioner to issue procedural instructions only if consistent with the Act and the Rules. A circular directing extension of time to cure deficiency in the exemption fee was inconsistent with rule 20-B(a), which was treated as mandatory.

Conclusion: The circular had no statutory force and was not binding on the Sales Tax Officer. The answer to the referred question was in the negative, in favour of the Revenue.

---