Declared signatures on turnover certificates may be verified; mere production does not prove deduction entitlement.

Deduction from taxable turnover based on purchaser declarations depended on production of the prescribed certificate, but such production was not conclusive proof of genuineness. Where the assessing authority had reason to doubt the signature or identity of the signatory, it could compare the disputed signature with departmental records and call for further proof from the assessee. The later statutory requirement of specimen signatures did not apply to the period in question. Mere production of the declarations therefore did not by itself establish entitlement to deduction, although on the facts the assessee's claim remained protected because the department had no relevant records.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for claiming deduction from taxable turnover on the basis of declarations furnished by purchasing registered dealers, the assessee must prove the identity and authority of the signatory when the declarations bear signatures in a regional language, and whether the department may challenge the genuineness of such declarations.

Analysis: Deduction under the relevant turnover provisions depended on production of the prescribed certificate by the purchasing dealer. Production of a certificate purporting to bear the purchaser's signature was not conclusive proof of genuineness. Where the assessing authority had reason to suspect the signature or identity of the signatory, it was open to the authority to compare the disputed signature with the records available in the department and to require further proof from the assessee. The issue was treated as one of procedure for verifying authenticity rather than a rigid rule of burden in the abstract. The Court also indicated that the later statutory provisions requiring specimen signatures were not applicable to the period in question.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative and in favour of the department; mere production of the declarations did not by itself establish entitlement to deduction, and the department could question the genuineness of the signatures. In the facts of the case, however, the Tribunal's direction protecting the assessee's claim was allowed to stand because the department had no relevant records.

---