Deduction for sales tax purposes stands where genuine dealer declarations are uncontroverted and no contrary material is produced.

Uncontroverted declarations from genuine registered purchasing dealers supported deduction for sales of leather boots under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the Department produced no material to show the declarations were false or outside the statutory requirement. The Tribunal's factual finding that the sales satisfied the deduction conditions was therefore not displaced by the absence of specific mention of leather boots in the registration certificates. On that basis, no referable question of law arose from the challenge that the conclusion was unsupported by evidence, and the reference was not required to be answered.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, any question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding that the sales of leather boots were entitled to deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: The purchasing dealers were genuine registered dealers and had furnished declaration forms certifying that the goods purchased were intended for use in the manufacture of goods in West Bengal for sale. The Department did not produce any material to show that those declarations were false or that the sales were not covered by the statutory requirement. In these circumstances, the absence of specific mention of leather boots in the registration certificates did not by itself create a legal issue, and the challenge that the Tribunal acted without evidence could not be sustained as a question of law.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for opinion, and the reference was not required to be answered.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of without any costs, leaving the Tribunal's factual conclusion undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where genuine registered purchasing dealers furnish uncontroverted declarations under the statutory form, and the Department produces no material to disprove them, a challenge that the Tribunal's conclusion is unsupported by evidence does not necessarily raise a referable question of law.

---