Conditional sales tax exemption on iron and steel needs transaction-wise proof; blanket writ declaration refused.

Exemption from sales tax on iron and steel end-products was conditional, not absolute: the manufacturer had to produce purchase declarations and prove that the raw materials had already suffered tax, with compliance examined transaction by transaction by the assessing authority. An earlier Division Bench ruling removed only the territorial restriction on re-rolling activity outside Tamil Nadu; it did not waive the factual conditions for exemption. The 17 March 1986 notification was treated as curing the earlier defect by providing a mechanism to ensure tax remittance at one stage and verify compliance. A blanket declaration in writ jurisdiction was therefore unavailable under Article 226.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a general declaration that exemption from sales tax on iron and steel end-products would apply even where the steel re-rolling mills were situated outside Tamil Nadu, and whether such relief could be granted in writ jurisdiction without proof that the raw materials had already suffered tax and the other conditions for exemption were satisfied.

Analysis: The exemption granted by the relevant notification under section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was not absolute. It was conditioned on production of a declaration of purchase and on proof that the raw materials used in manufacture had suffered tax at the raw-material stage. The earlier Division Bench ruling on the older notifications did not dispense with that essential factual requirement; it only removed the territorial restriction that the re-rolling activity must be within Tamil Nadu. The later notification of 17 March 1986 was treated as curing the earlier defect by ensuring tax remittance at one stage and by providing a mechanism to verify compliance. The relief sought was also too general and abstract, because entitlement to exemption depended on transaction-wise proof before the assessing authority and could not be declared in advance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the sought declaration in writ proceedings, and the claim for exemption had to be established before the competent assessing authority on proof of the requisite factual conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not grant a blanket declaration of fiscal exemption where entitlement depends on proof of statutory and notification-based conditions precedent that must be established on the facts of each transaction before the assessing authority.

---