Late production of declaration forms may still be accepted where sufficient cause is shown and genuineness is undisputed.

Rule 27A(9) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 requires declaration forms to be produced before the first assessing authority, but its proviso permits appellate or revisional acceptance where sufficient cause prevented earlier production. Where the forms were shown to have existed before assessment and their genuineness was not disputed, a cryptic refusal without addressing the dealer's explanation could not stand. On that basis, the denial of concessional tax treatment under section 5(1)(bb) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh appellate consideration of sufficient cause and late production.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate and revisional authorities were justified in refusing to entertain declaration forms produced after assessment and in denying the concessional tax benefit under section 5(1)(bb) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with rule 27A(9) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.

Analysis: Rule 27A(9) requires declaration forms to be produced before the first assessing authority, but its proviso empowers the appellate or revisional authority to accept them if the dealer was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them earlier. The record showed that the declaration forms were in existence before assessment and that the genuineness of the forms was not questioned. The appellate order was cryptic and did not disclose what explanation was offered or why it was rejected, and the revisional authority also proceeded on an uncertain factual basis as to whether the cause for non-production had been shown before the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the refusal to consider the forms and the consequent denial of the claimed benefit could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the declaration forms was not justified, and the appellate and revisional orders were unsustainable; the matter was remanded for fresh appellate consideration, including the question of sufficient cause for late production.

---