Form 25 exemption claim failed where defective declarations and missing supporting evidence could not establish sales to assessable dealers.

Exemption based on Form 25 declarations was rejected because the declarations were defective, including a mismatch between the alleged sales and the declarants, and the petitioner failed to cure the defects or produce supporting evidence that the sales were made to assessable dealers within the State. The alternative commission-agency explanation was not raised before the lower authorities and was not supported by the record, so the assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption on the basis of Form 25 declarations despite defects in the declarations and failure to produce supporting evidence.

Analysis: The declarations produced to claim exemption were found defective, including a mismatch between the alleged sales and the persons from whom the declarations emanated. The petitioner was given notice of the defects but neither rectified them nor adduced other evidence to establish that the sales were in fact made to assessable dealers within the State. The alternative explanation regarding commission agency was not put forward before the lower authorities and was unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was rightly rejected and the assessment was upheld.

---