State rule on Form C signatures valid, but cannot invalidate Forms C issued by out-of-State purchasing dealers.

A State rule under the Central Sales Tax Act may require an additional signature in Form C as an added declaration detail, provided it is not inconsistent with the Act or the Central rules; on that basis, the amended Orissa rule was treated as valid. The rule, however, could not govern purchasing dealers outside Orissa, who remained bound by the rules applicable in their own States. Forms C issued by such out-of-State dealers and otherwise compliant with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules could not be rejected for non-compliance with the Orissa requirement, and the assessment authorities were required to accept them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended rule requiring an additional signature in Form C was ultra vires Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)(e) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the Orissa rule could bind purchasing dealers outside the State so as to invalidate Form C issued by them.

Issue (i): Whether the amended rule requiring an additional signature in Form C was ultra vires Section 13(3) and Section 13(4)(e) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 13(1)(d) authorises the Central Government to prescribe the form and particulars of declarations, while Section 13(3) permits State rules only if they are not inconsistent with the Act and the Central rules. The additional signature requirement was treated as an additional particular that could validly be introduced under the State rule-making power. It did not conflict with the form prescribed under the Central framework or create any inconsistency with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The amended rule was not ultra vires Section 13(3) or Section 13(4)(e) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the Orissa rule could bind purchasing dealers outside the State so as to invalidate Form C issued by them.

Analysis: The purchasing dealers outside Orissa were governed by the rules applicable in their own States, and no corresponding rule requiring a second signature was shown to exist there. Forms C issued by such dealers were otherwise in conformity with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules. The Court held that such forms could not be rejected in Orissa merely for non-compliance with the impugned Orissa rule, since the rule did not govern those outside-State purchasers.

Conclusion: The Orissa rule was not binding on outside-State purchasers, and the Forms C filed by the petitioner remained valid.

Final Conclusion: The assessment authorities were not entitled to reject the Forms C and were required to accept them and proceed with the assessment on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A State rule framed under the Central Sales Tax Act may add particulars to the prescribed declaration form so long as it is not inconsistent with the Central Act or Central rules, but it cannot invalidate declarations issued by out-of-State purchasing dealers who are not subject to that State rule.

---