Strict compliance for tax deduction declarations bars reliance on signature comparison when mandatory nomination records are missing.

Tax deduction claims based on declaration forms require strict compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure, including proper nomination records and specimen signatures. Where the licensed dealer or a duly recorded nominee has not furnished the required particulars and intimations, the declaration is not shown to be valid and the deduction fails. The defect cannot be cured by later or extrinsic evidence, including comparison of signatures, because the statutory formalities are designed to ensure genuineness, prevent fraud, and provide administrative certainty. On that basis, the deduction claim was disallowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction from turnover under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, on the basis of declarations in form No. 17, including certificates signed by the licensed dealer or an alleged nominee. (ii) Whether, where the prescribed procedural requirements for forms and nomination were not complied with, the assessee could establish the claim for deduction by other evidence, including comparison of signatures.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction from turnover under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, on the basis of declarations in form No. 17, including certificates signed by the licensed dealer or an alleged nominee.

Analysis: The deduction was available only on strict compliance with the statutory scheme governing declarations. The prescribed forms and conditions required the licensed dealer to lodge specimen signatures, enter the name of any nominee in the statement attached to the licence, and ensure that the nominee's specimen signature and intimation of nomination were furnished to the department. The form No. 17 declaration had to be signed only by the licensed dealer or by a duly nominated person whose name was entered in the licence records. On the facts, the required particulars and specimen signatures were not duly furnished, and the declarations were therefore not shown to be genuine and valid.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the deduction under section 8(iii); the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether, where the prescribed procedural requirements for forms and nomination were not complied with, the assessee could establish the claim for deduction by other evidence, including comparison of signatures.

Analysis: The statutory conditions were intended to prevent fraud and secure administrative certainty. Once the prescribed formalities were not complied with, the claim for deduction had to fail on the material available to the department, and additional evidence could not be used to cure the foundational defect. Comparison of signatures could not displace the absence of mandatory compliance with the prescribed forms and nomination procedure. The Tribunal was therefore justified in refusing to accept the claim on the basis of other evidence.

Conclusion: The assessee could not establish the claim for deduction by other evidence despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure; the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the disallowance of the deduction claims and by rejecting the contention that procedural defects could be cured through extrinsic evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax concession or deduction is conditioned on prescribed declaration forms, nomination records, and specimen signatures, strict compliance is mandatory and the defect cannot be cured by subsequent or extrinsic evidence such as comparison of signatures.

---