Exemption claim under tax notification upheld where Form D accompanied the return and purchases were from growers.

Exemption under serial No. 56 could not be refused merely because raw materials were purchased from growers rather than registered dealers. The court noted that the scheme was intended to support new industries for five years from commencement of production, and that Form D was meant to support the exemption claim before the department, not only in transactions between registered dealers. The notification and the later form also indicated that, where purchase tax was leviable, the declaration was to accompany the dealer's return. As the assessee furnished Form D for the full turnover and the purchases were liable to purchase tax, the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption from tax under serial No. 56 could be denied merely because the raw materials were purchased from growers and not from registered dealers, and whether the declaration in Form D had to be furnished only to a selling registered dealer.

Analysis: The exemption scheme under serial No. 56 was intended to support new industries for five years from commencement of production. The requirement of a declaration in Form D was not confined to sales between two registered dealers. The declaration served the purpose of claiming exemption before the department. The text of the notification and the note appended to the later declaration form showed that, where purchase tax was leviable, the declaration was to accompany the return of the dealer. Since the assessee had furnished Form D for the full turnover and the purchases were liable to purchase tax, the absence of a purchase from a registered dealer did not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that the purchases were from growers, and the assessee was entitled to tax relief.

---