Concessional tax declaration cannot be rejected on conjecture without material proving falsity or resale

A concessional tax declaration under Form 3D cannot be rejected on conjecture that the purchasing dealer may have resold the goods or generally acted for other departments. The U.P. Jal Nigam was treated as a separate legal entity with its own statutory functions, and the declaration stated that the goods were for its own requirement and not for resale or manufacture. In the absence of any defect, fabrication, or material showing the declaration to be false, the authority's reliance on a generalised assumption was unsustainable, and concessional tax relief was directed to follow.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of Form 3D and denial of concessional rate of tax to the selling dealer was justified on the footing that the purchasing dealer, U.P. Jal Nigam, had allegedly resold the goods or was generally working for other departments.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 showed that U.P. Jal Nigam had separate legal existence, its own functions and powers, and was constituted to perform governmental water supply and sewerage functions. Form 3D contained the requisite declaration that the goods were for the purchaser's own requirement and not for resale or manufacture, and no defect, fabrication, or lack of genuineness was shown. The rejection order rested only on a generalised and unsupported observation that Jal Nigam ordinarily works for other departments, without any material to show resale of the pumps. The record also did not displace the verification made in the form.

Conclusion: The rejection of Form 3D was held unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to concessional rate of tax.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, and the authority was directed to extend the benefit of Form 3D and grant consequential concessional tax relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessional tax declaration cannot be rejected on conjecture or a general assumption of resale; the authority must base denial on material showing that the statutory declaration is false, defective, or unsupported by evidence.

---