Concessional rate entitlement depends on prescribed declaration; buyer's later misuse cannot defeat the seller's statutory benefit.

Revisional interference was unjustified where the original assessment correctly granted exemption on rexine cloth turnover, so the exemption could not be disturbed. A seller claiming concessional rate on goods sold against the prescribed declaration satisfies the statutory condition by producing that declaration; the purchaser's later misuse does not retrospectively defeat the seller's entitlement. The proper remedy for such misuse lies against the purchaser under the penal provision, not by denying the seller the concession. The assessment revision was therefore quashed, and the assessee succeeded on both substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional notice was sustainable in relation to the exemption granted on rexine cloth turnover; (ii) whether the seller could be denied concessional rate on goods sold against declaration merely because the purchaser later misused the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional notice was sustainable in relation to the exemption granted on rexine cloth turnover.

Analysis: The assessment had exempted the rexine cloth turnover, and the challenge to that treatment was examined in the light of the governing legal position on the commodity. The exemption had already been supported by prior authority, and the revisional interference was held to be unwarranted where the original assessment accorded with law.

Conclusion: The revisional notice was not sustainable against the exemption granted on rexine cloth turnover.

Issue (ii): Whether the seller could be denied concessional rate on goods sold against declaration merely because the purchaser later misused the goods.

Analysis: Under the concessional-rate provision, the dealer's entitlement depends on production of the prescribed declaration. Once the declaration in the required form is produced, the seller satisfies the statutory condition. Any later misuse of the goods by the purchaser does not retrospectively defeat the seller's entitlement; the statute contemplates separate action against the purchaser for such misuse under the penal provision.

Conclusion: The seller could not be denied the concessional rate merely because the purchaser later misused the goods.

Final Conclusion: The notice seeking revision of the assessment was quashed, and the assessee succeeded on both substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer is entitled to the concessional rate upon production of the prescribed declaration, and the purchaser's subsequent misuse of the goods cannot deprive the seller of that statutory benefit; revisional interference is not justified where the original assessment is in accordance with law.

---