Genuine declaration forms protect rebate claims when purchaser later misuses goods beyond the seller's control.

Rebate under Rule 27-D could not be denied to the selling dealer where the prescribed declaration forms were genuine, complete and defect-free, and the dealer had complied with the statutory conditions by furnishing the required declarations and satisfying himself about the transaction to that extent. The rule did not impose a further duty on the selling dealer to verify how the purchasing dealer later dealt with the finished goods. If the purchaser subsequently stock transferred the goods or otherwise misused them, any action lay against that purchaser, not against a bona fide selling dealer acting on valid forms. The Tribunal's order allowing rebate was sustained and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the selling dealer was entitled to rebate under Rule 27-D when the prescribed declaration forms were genuine and complete, notwithstanding that the purchasing dealer later stock transferred the finished goods instead of selling them in Uttar Pradesh or exporting them.

Analysis: Rule 27-D grants rebate to a selling dealer on tax levied on oils sold to a registered oil-based industry, subject to the prescribed conditions of actual consumption, proof of such consumption, proof of refund of tax realised from the purchaser, and filing of declarations in forms VII-G and VII-H. The rule requires the selling dealer to furnish the prescribed forms and to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the transaction to that extent; it does not cast on him a further burden to verify how the purchasing dealer ultimately dealt with the finished goods. Once the forms were found genuine and no defect was noticed, the selling dealer had complied with the rule. Any wrong declaration or misuse by the purchasing dealer could give rise to action against that dealer, but not against the selling dealer acting bona fide on valid forms.

Conclusion: The rebate could not be denied to the selling dealer merely because the purchasing dealer stock transferred the finished goods, and the claim of rebate was rightly allowed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the Tribunal's order allowing the rebate was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the selling dealer has furnished the prescribed genuine declaration forms and complied with the statutory requirements, he is not liable to be denied rebate on account of the purchaser's subsequent misuse or non-compliance beyond his control.

---