Exemption proof requirements for turnover tax on tea may be met by satisfactory alternative evidence, not only prescribed declarations.

An exemption notification for turnover tax on manufactured tea was conditioned on production of a prescribed declaration, but the Court held that the declaration was not the exclusive mode of proof. If the relevant fact could be established by other satisfactory evidence showing tax paid at the second point of sale, the exemption could not be denied solely for non-production of the form unless the notification expressly barred alternative proof. The assessee was therefore entitled to adduce substitute evidence, and the matter required reconsideration on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption from turnover tax on manufactured tea under the notification could be denied merely because the assessee did not produce the declaration in the prescribed form, and whether other satisfactory evidence could be accepted in its place.

Analysis: The turnover tax on tea was payable under section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, but the exemption notification granted relief from that tax except at the point of second sale, subject to production of the prescribed declaration. The assessee was not the second seller, yet had not produced the declaration before the authorities. The Court agreed that the notification imposed conditions for exemption, but held that the declaration was not the only permissible mode of proof. Consistently with the earlier view relied on by the Court, the assessee could establish the requisite fact by other satisfactory evidence showing payment of turnover tax at the second point of sale.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to an opportunity to produce alternative proof, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the Tribunal on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification requires a declaration as proof of entitlement, the exemption need not fail if the same fact can be established by other satisfactory evidence, unless the notification expressly excludes that mode of proof.

---