Strict compliance for sales tax exemption certificates: invalid signatures defeated the claim to exemption.

Exemption under the first proviso to section 9 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 depended on furnishing a certificate in the prescribed form signed by the purchasing dealer or by a person duly nominated under the licence and rules. The signature requirement was treated as integral to the validity of the declaration, not a mere procedural irregularity. Because the form K certificates were signed by persons not duly nominated, the declarations were ineffective and the assessee could not claim the exemption. The ruling applied strict compliance to provisions intended to prevent fraud and collusion in tax exemption claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under the first proviso to section 9 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, when the certificates in form K were signed by persons not nominated by the purchasing dealer under the licence.

Analysis: The exemption under the proviso to section 9 depended upon furnishing a certificate in the prescribed form, and the prescribed scheme required the certificate to be signed by the purchasing dealer or by a person duly nominated in the manner provided by the licence and rules. The signature requirement was held to be integral to the validity of the declaration, not a mere procedural formality. The Court distinguished cases where only the form of the declaration was irregular, and applied the principle that provisions designed to prevent fraud and collusion in tax exemption claims require strict compliance rather than a liberal or substantial-compliance approach.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the claimed exemption, because the certificates lacked the statutorily required valid signature and were therefore ineffective for claiming deduction.

---