Tax rebate on paddy purchases upheld where H-forms were accepted and no extra proof for export compliance was required.

Rebate on purchase of paddy under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held available where H-forms had been furnished and accepted and the goods were linked to rice exported outside India. The Tribunal could not impose an additional requirement of independent proof that the paddy was purchased after, and specifically for, compliance with the export order when that condition was not warranted on the facts already covered by earlier Division Bench authority. Following the earlier view on identical facts, the dealer's entitlement to rebate was affirmed and the contrary direction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was entitled to rebate of tax on purchase of paddy under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the Tribunal could insist on proof that the paddy was purchased after and for complying with the export order despite H-forms having been furnished and accepted.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by an earlier Division Bench decision on identical facts. The Court noted that the H-forms had been furnished and accepted, and that the earlier decision had already examined entitlement to rebate on purchase of paddy used for rice exported outside India. It was held that the Tribunal had no basis to add a further condition requiring independent proof that the paddy purchase was made after and for the purpose of complying with the export order. To maintain consistency, the earlier view in favour of the dealer was followed.

Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to rebate under Section 5(2)(a)(vi) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the additional condition imposed by the Tribunal was unsustainable. The appeals were accepted, and the impugned direction was set aside.

---