Exemption on export sales cannot be denied for minor defects in H forms where the bill of lading supports the claim.

Exemption under the proviso to section 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could not be denied merely because the H forms contained cuttings, overwritings, different inks and some unauthenticated entries. The relevant sales were made to exporters, the H forms were produced, and the bill of lading supported the claim; there was no finding that the forms were fictitious or that the alterations broke the connection between the H forms and the bill of lading. Those defects were treated as minor and not going to the root of the exemption claim, so the assessee remained entitled to exemption and rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under the proviso to section 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be denied merely because the H forms contained cuttings, overwritings, use of different inks, and some unauthenticated entries.

Analysis: The exemption was claimed on the basis that the sales were made to exporters and the relevant H forms were produced. The defects noticed in the forms were only minor. The supporting bill of lading was available before the authority, and there was no finding that the forms were fictitious or that the alterations destroyed the link between the H forms and the bill of lading. The defects, therefore, did not go to the root of the claim. A remand under rule 8A(4) was also unnecessary because that course was intended only where the defects were of such a nature as to make the assessee ineligible to claim exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to exemption under the proviso to section 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---