Exemption under sales tax law cannot be denied for missing transport documents where prescribed forms alone are required.

Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act required only the prescribed E-I/E-II certificate and C declaration for exemption, so the assessing authority could not insist on endorsed lorry receipt or railway receipt copies as an additional condition. Circulars issued by the Board of Revenue could not enlarge the statutory burden or override the Act and Rules, and instructions requiring transport-document copies were inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The operative effect is that exemption claims under section 6(2) must be tested on the prescribed forms alone, and rejection cannot rest solely on non-production of endorsed transport documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be denied for non-production of endorsed lorry receipt or railway receipt in addition to E-I and C forms. (ii) Whether the Board of Revenue could, by circulars, require production of such transport documents and direct rejection of exemption claims on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be denied for non-production of endorsed lorry receipt or railway receipt in addition to E-I and C forms.

Analysis: The exemption scheme under section 6(2), read with section 8(4), rule 12(1), rule 12(4) and the Kerala rules, required the dealer to furnish only the prescribed E-I/E-II certificate and the C declaration. The statutory text did not impose any additional obligation to produce copies of endorsed documents of title as a condition for exemption. The Court also noted that where the legislature intended verification of particulars, as in section 6A, it said so expressly.

Conclusion: The assessing authority could not insist on endorsed lorry receipt or railway receipt copies as an additional condition for granting exemption under section 6(2); production of the prescribed E-I and C forms was sufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue could, by circulars, require production of such transport documents and direct rejection of exemption claims on that basis.

Analysis: The Board of Revenue had no statutory power under the Central Sales Tax Act or the Rules to add conditions inconsistent with the Act. A circular cannot override the express statutory requirements, and executive instructions with mandatory effect cannot enlarge the obligations of the assessee beyond the statute. The circulars insisting on transport-document copies were therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The circulars were non est in law and could not be used to reject exemption claims under section 6(2) merely because endorsed transport documents were not produced.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the pre-assessment notices could not stand on the ground of non-production of endorsed lorry or railway receipts, and the assessments had to be completed in accordance with the statutory provisions treating E-I and C forms as the governing documents for the exemption claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes the documents required to claim exemption, the assessing authority cannot demand additional documents or rely on executive circulars to impose further mandatory conditions inconsistent with the statute.

---