Prescribed declaration for deduction became mandatory after amendment, while earlier sales could still be proved by other acceptable evidence.

Deduction on sales to registered dealers became mandatory only on furnishing Form 34 after the 1 June 1976 amendment; from that date, alternative proof was not sufficient and deduction was denied without the prescribed declaration. For the period before the amendment took effect, Form 34 was not compulsory, so entitlement could be established by other acceptable evidence, such as an affidavit or comparable material, if the authority was satisfied about the registered-dealer resale claim. The post-amendment period was upheld, while the pre-amendment period required fresh examination on the basis of acceptable proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, after the amendment to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) by Orissa Act 3 of 1976, deduction on sales to registered dealers could be claimed without furnishing the prescribed declaration in Form 34; (ii) whether, for the period before the amendment took effect, the dealer could establish entitlement to deduction by other acceptable evidence.

Issue (i): whether, after the amendment to section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) by Orissa Act 3 of 1976, deduction on sales to registered dealers could be claimed without furnishing the prescribed declaration in Form 34.

Analysis: The substituted proviso required the selling dealer to furnish, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, a declaration in the prescribed form for claiming deduction. The amendment came into force on 1 June 1976. From that date onwards, the statutory condition for deduction was expressed in mandatory terms, leaving no scope for alternative proof in place of the prescribed declaration.

Conclusion: Deduction for the period from 1 June 1976 onwards was rightly held to depend on production of the prescribed declaration, and the assessee was not entitled to deduction without it.

Issue (ii): whether, for the period before the amendment took effect, the dealer could establish entitlement to deduction by other acceptable evidence.

Analysis: For the period between 1 April 1976 and 31 May 1976, the substituted proviso was not yet operative. During that period, the legal position did not make the declaration in Form 34 compulsory. The assessee could therefore establish that the sales were made to a registered dealer for resale in Orissa by acceptable material such as an affidavit, subject to the taxing authority being satisfied about its sufficiency and particulars.

Conclusion: For the period from 1 April 1976 to 31 May 1976, the assessee was entitled to have the claim examined on the basis of other acceptable evidence, and the Tribunal was required to reconsider that period accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The decision upheld the assessments for the post-amendment period, but kept open and remitted the pre-amendment period for fresh consideration on the basis of acceptable proof of sales to a registered dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision introduces a prescribed declaration as a condition for deduction with effect from a specified date, compliance becomes mandatory from that date, but transactions preceding the effective date remain governable by the unamended evidentiary rule.

---