Strict compliance with declaration-form rules required for concessional sales tax; photostat counterfoils were insufficient.

Photostat copies of counterfoils of C declaration forms did not amount to compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The Delhi HC held that concessional tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is available only when the declaration is furnished in the prescribed manner under section 8(4), and rule 12(3) requires the duplicate declaration process prescribed for lost forms to be strictly followed. Because a mere photostat copy did not satisfy the duplicate-document safeguard or the anti-fraud mechanism built into the rule, the selling dealer was not entitled to concessional taxation on the disputed sales.

---

---

Issues: Whether photostat copies of the counterfoils of C declaration forms constituted sufficient compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 so as to entitle the selling dealer to the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The concessional rate under section 8(1) is available only if the dealer furnishes the declaration in the prescribed manner under section 8(4). Rule 12(3) specifically deals with loss of the declaration form and requires a duplicate to be furnished by the dealer who issued the form, together with the prescribed declaration on all three portions of the duplicate. The requirement is not a mere formality: it serves to prevent fraud, ensure that the counterfoil, original and duplicate relate to the same transaction, and provide an accountable mechanism when a form is lost. A mere photostat copy of the counterfoil does not satisfy that statutory safeguard, because it does not amount to the duplicate contemplated by the rule and does not establish that the original and duplicate portions were issued to the same selling dealer.

Conclusion: The photostat copies were not sufficient compliance with rule 12(3), and the assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) on the disputed sales.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the claim for concessional taxation on the relevant turnover failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes concessional treatment conditional upon production of a declaration form in the prescribed manner, the prescribed mode must be strictly followed and a substitute document that does not satisfy the rule's anti-fraud safeguards is insufficient.

---