Statutory exemption cannot be denied for non-furnishing of form C when delegated rules add no valid extra condition.

Rule 8-D of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, could not validly add form C as an extra condition for claiming exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the parent statute and the Central rules required only the prescribed certificates in forms E-I and E-II. A delegated rule cannot enlarge the burden imposed by the Act or create a fresh mandatory requirement for a statutory exemption. To the extent rule 8-D demanded form C, it operated only as a directory mode of proof and not as a mandatory bar to exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement in rule 8-D of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, that form C be furnished in addition to form E-I or E-II for claiming exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was mandatory and could validly be used to deny exemption.

Analysis: Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, granted exemption to a subsequent inter-State sale effected by transfer of documents of title during movement of goods, subject to furnishing the prescribed certificate from the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased. The Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, required forms E-I and E-II for that purpose. Rule 8-D of the State Rules added the further condition of producing form C. That additional condition was not found in section 6(2) or its proviso and imposed a restriction beyond the statutory scheme. A delegated rule cannot enlarge the burden created by the Act or add a fresh condition for availing a statutory exemption. The rule was therefore treated as only a directory mode of proof and not as a mandatory bar to exemption.

Conclusion: The requirement of form C under rule 8-D was not mandatory, and exemption under section 6(2) could not be denied merely for non-furnishing of form C.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under delegated legislative power cannot impose an additional mandatory condition for a statutory exemption where the parent Act prescribes only the statutory certificates required for that exemption; such a rule, to the extent of the excess, is only directory and cannot defeat the exemption.

---