Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether production of the official declaration form in the prescribed statutory form was mandatory for claiming deduction on sales made to registered dealers under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Analysis: The deduction claimed for sales to registered dealers had to satisfy the conditions of the taxing scheme. After insertion of section 5(2)(B), deductions under section 5(2) were required to be proved in the prescribed manner. Rule 27(2) prescribed proof by furnishing declarations in Form No. XXXIV. Earlier authorities permitting substantial compliance were distinguished because they related to periods before the amendment and before the present statutory requirement was introduced. The scheme of sections 5 and 8 was treated as complementary, and the statutory conditions for exemption could not be relaxed by resort to equity or a broader interpretation contrary to the prescribed mode of proof.
Conclusion: Production of the declaration in Form No. XXXIV was mandatory, and the question was answered against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing exemption or deduction is made conditional upon proof in the prescribed manner, compliance with the statutorily prescribed form and method of proof is mandatory and cannot be substituted by informal or alternative evidence.