Substantial compliance preserved purchase tax set-off despite omission of a separate prescribed form

Rule 11(4) governing purchase tax set-off was treated as mandatory, but substantial compliance was sufficient where the required particulars were in fact furnished in the returns and the claim was made within time. The only defect was that the information was not placed in a separate printed Form 12. The Bombay HC rejected a hypertechnical refusal of relief, holding that this minor procedural omission did not defeat the set-off when the substantive conditions were met. Authorities relied on by the department were distinguished because they concerned cases where the foundational requirements for relief were not satisfied. The respondents were therefore entitled to set-off.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to set-off for purchase tax because the particulars required by rule 11(4) were not furnished in a separate Form (12), although the same information was contained in the returns.

Analysis: The rule-making power under section 18B authorised conditions for grant of set-off, and rule 11(4) required a register and a statement in Form (12) within time. The Court proceeded on the assumption that the rule was mandatory, but held that the respondents had in substance complied with every material requirement: the necessary particulars were actually furnished, the claim was made within the prescribed period, and the only defect was that the particulars were not placed in the separate printed form. The Court rejected a hypertechnical approach and treated the omission as a minor deviation that did not defeat the claim where the substance of the requirement had been satisfied. The decisions relied on by the department were distinguished because they involved cases where the foundational conditions for relief were absent.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to set-off and the absence of a separate Form (12) did not invalidate the claim.

---