Statutory declaration alone does not prove genuine sale; sales tax deduction fails where surrounding evidence shows non-genuineness.

Deduction for a sale to a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act required the dealer to prove, with the particulars and evidence mandated by the Sales Tax Rules, that the transaction was genuine. Production of the statutory declaration form and cash memo did not by itself establish entitlement where the authority relied on relevant material, including cancellation of the purchaser's registration, inconsistencies about declaration forms, a heavy cash component, and the dealer's unexplained failure to produce the stock book. On that evidence, the finding of non-genuineness disclosed no jurisdictional error or absence of evidence, so interference in writ jurisdiction was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disallowance of deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, on the ground that the alleged sale to a registered dealer was not genuine, was without jurisdiction or without evidence so as to warrant interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The claim for deduction depended on the dealer establishing, with the particulars and evidence required by rule 27A and subject to rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, that the transaction was a genuine sale to a registered dealer. The materials before the authority included the subsequent cancellation of the purchaser's registration, the inconsistency between the purchaser's statement that declaration forms had been exhausted and the later use of a declaration form, the heavy cash component of the price, and the petitioner's failure to produce the stock book without explanation. Mere production of the declaration form and cash memo did not conclude the matter or prevent the authority from examining genuineness on the whole evidence.

Conclusion: The finding that the transaction was not genuine was supported by relevant material and did not disclose any jurisdictional error or absence of evidence. Interference under article 226 was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed and the writ application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Production of the prescribed statutory declaration does not by itself establish entitlement to sales tax deduction if the assessing authority, on relevant material, concludes that the transaction was not genuine; such a finding is not open to interference in writ jurisdiction unless it is without evidence or jurisdictionally vitiated.

---