Concessional inter-State sales tax requires compliant C forms; duplicates and mismatched invoice particulars were rejected.

Under rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, as applicable for the 1980-81 assessment year, a selling dealer was required to file the original C form to claim concessional tax on inter-State sales. A duplicate form could not be substituted unless the rule expressly allowed it, and the later amendment permitting duplicate production on loss of the original did not apply retrospectively. C forms were also liable to rejection where they did not refer to the purchase order and where the value stated in the form did not match the invoice particulars, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy was offered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 as it stood for the assessment year 1980-81, a duplicate C form could be produced in place of the original to claim concessional tax on inter-State sales; (ii) Whether C forms could be accepted where they did not refer to the purchase order and the value stated in the forms differed from the value in the invoices.

Issue (i): Whether, under rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 as it stood for the assessment year 1980-81, a duplicate C form could be produced in place of the original to claim concessional tax on inter-State sales.

Analysis: The rule then in force required the selling dealer to attach the portion marked "original" of the declaration received from the purchasing dealer. The further power of the assessing authority to direct production of the portion marked "duplicate" was only additional and discretionary. The substituted rule introduced later, which permitted production of the duplicate where the original had been lost, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: Duplicate C forms could not be produced in lieu of the original under the unamended rule, and the assessee was not entitled to concessional tax on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether C forms could be accepted where they did not refer to the purchase order and the value stated in the forms differed from the value in the invoices.

Analysis: The C forms relating to the disputed turnover were rejected because they did not contain reference to the purchase order and because there was a mismatch between the value shown in the forms and the invoices. No acceptable explanation for the discrepancy was shown.

Conclusion: The rejection of those C forms was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The tax case revision failed on the merits, and the assessee obtained no relief on any of the substantive issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing sales tax rule requires production of the original declaration form, a duplicate cannot be substituted unless the rule expressly permits it, and a declaration form that does not correspond with the invoice particulars may be rejected.

---