Concessional sales tax treatment sustained where destroyed records and a draft assessment order supported verification of declaration forms.

Concessional tax treatment under section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as supportable where the dealer had produced books of account and declaration forms before the original assessing officer, and the records were later destroyed in a fire. The unsigned draft assessment order prepared in the officer's handwriting was treated as contemporaneous evidence that the declarations had been verified and accepted. On these facts, a strong presumption arose in favour of the assessee, and the revenue did not rebut it. The inability to produce the same records before the successor officer was therefore not held against the dealer, and the claim under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional tax treatment under section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 on the basis of declaration forms and supporting records that had been produced before the original assessing officer but were later destroyed in a fire, and whether the unsigned draft assessment order could be relied upon to support the claim.

Analysis: The materials showed that the dealer had produced the relevant books of account and 868 declaration forms before the original assessing officer, who had examined them and prepared a draft assessment order in his own handwriting before his death. The subsequent inability to produce the same documents before the successor officer was attributable to the fire that destroyed the records. The unsigned draft order, though not itself a regular signed assessment order, was treated as a significant contemporaneous record indicating that the deceased officer had verified the declarations and was satisfied with the claim. On these peculiar facts, the Court accepted that a strong presumption arose in favour of the assessee, and the revenue failed to rebut it. The attempt to seek exemption from production requirements also showed that the assessee had not been indifferent to the procedural difficulty created by the fire.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim for concessional treatment was upheld, and the claims under section 5(2)(a)(ii) were directed to be allowed.

---