Burden under section 41 and declaration forms: tribunal's refusal to make a reference was upheld.

Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal's refusal to draw a reference was sustained because the challenge raised no error of law apparent on the record or perversity. The court noted that, once a declaration form is issued, section 41(2) places the burden on the purchaser, and the seller cannot automatically avoid liability if the dealer was not entitled to issue the declaration. Relying on the amended section 41 and the binding precedent in M.R.F. Limited, the court held that statutory liability could still arise in accordance with the Act. The reference application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to draw a reference on the question of tax liability arising from sales made against Form-A and the scope of section 41(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The application sought a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The challenge was to the Tribunal's view that, once the declaration form was issued, the burden under section 41(2) lay on the purchaser and the seller could not be fastened with the duty to establish entitlement to exemption. The record showed that the Tribunal had relied on the amended section 41 and the binding ratio in M.R.F. Limited to hold that, if the dealer was not entitled to issue the declaration, the statutory liability could still arise in accordance with section 41. On that basis, the High Court found no error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity in the refusal to make a reference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was in refusing the reference application, and the application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that, in the statutory scheme under section 41, the declaration form does not by itself preclude scrutiny where the goods are claimed to be outside the notified exemption, and the authorities retain power to act in accordance with the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 41(2) places the burden on the purchaser and the applicable precedent has settled the seller's limited role, refusal to make a reference will not be interfered with absent a demonstrated error of law or perversity.

---