Mandatory declaration forms for sales tax deduction cannot be replaced later by appellate or best judgment relief.

The writ petition was treated as maintainable because the statutory reference remedy was considered inadequate on the facts, particularly where the legal issue was already settled, and the Commissioner was regarded as a person prejudicially affected entitled to invoke Article 226. Deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) read with Rule 27A was held to depend on mandatory production of the prescribed declaration forms at the assessment stage, and that defect could not be cured later by appellate or revisional authorities or by resort to best judgment. The Tribunal order was quashed, and the assessment orders were restored without remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ application by the Revenue was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory reference remedy; (ii) whether deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be allowed without production of declaration forms, and whether the appellate or revisional authority could grant such deduction on a best judgment basis.

Issue (i): whether the writ application by the Revenue was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory reference remedy

Analysis: The statutory remedy of reference was held to be inadequate in the facts of the case, especially since the question of law was already settled by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner, being charged with carrying out the purposes of the Act, was treated as a person prejudicially affected and therefore entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Misjoinder of parties, if any, was held not to defeat maintainability.

Conclusion: The writ application was maintainable and the preliminary objections were rejected.

Issue (ii): whether deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be allowed without production of declaration forms, and whether the appellate or revisional authority could grant such deduction on a best judgment basis

Analysis: The deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) read with Rule 27A was held to be conditional upon production of the prescribed declaration forms, and the requirement was treated as mandatory. The decision in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. was held to be binding and applicable, while the contrary reliance on M.A. Tulloch was rejected because the Bengal provisions were materially different. It was further held that the declaration forms had to be produced at the stage of assessment before the Commercial Tax Officer, and neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority could cure the defect or allow the claim on presumptions or best judgment considerations.

Conclusion: The deduction could not be allowed without the prescribed declarations, and the order granting part deduction was without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was quashed and the assessment orders as confirmed in the hierarchy below were restored, with no remand for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes production of prescribed declaration forms a mandatory condition for deduction, the claim cannot be allowed at any later stage or on equitable or best judgment considerations if the statutory condition is not fulfilled at the stage fixed by the statute and rules.

---