Sales tax exemption proof requires Form I declarations; alternative evidence cannot substitute mandatory filing under the rule.

A sales tax exemption claim under Rule 6-A depended on filing Form I declarations, and the requirement was treated as mandatory. The court rejected the assessee's attempt to prove exemption through other evidence, holding that an alternative mode of proof not contemplated by the rule could not be read into it. The earlier decision cited by the assessee was distinguished because it only accepted copies of Form I in place of originals as substantial compliance. The exemption claim therefore failed for want of the prescribed declarations.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under the sales tax rules could be claimed without filing form I declarations and proved by some other evidence.

Analysis: The claim for exemption was rejected because form I declarations were not filed before the assessing authority or the Tribunal. Rule 6-A was treated as requiring filing of form I declarations for claiming exemption, and the earlier decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished as dealing only with acceptance of copies of form I in place of originals as substantial compliance. The Court held that allowing exemption to be established by other evidence would amount to reading into the rule a mode of proof not provided by it.

Conclusion: The requirement to file form I declarations was upheld, and the assessee could not substantiate the exemption claim by any alternative mode of proof; the decision was against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax exemption rule mandates filing of a specified declaration form, the exemption cannot be proved by other evidence or by any alternate method not contemplated by the rule.

---