Concessional tax on sales and Form 18 declarations cannot be denied to a dealer who relied on valid statutory declarations.

A selling dealer is entitled to concessional tax treatment where sales are made to a notified joint sector undertaking, and the Tribunal may follow its own earlier view on the same assessee and notification framework when no error is shown. Concessional treatment also cannot be denied merely because furnace oil, lubricants and similar goods supplied on valid Form 18 declarations were allegedly used only as fuel rather than as raw material; the seller is not required to verify the purchaser's ultimate end use. Any misuse of the declaration lies against the purchaser, not the dealer who relied on it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sales made to BSES Kerala Power Ltd. qualified for concessional rate of tax as sales to a joint sector undertaking under the applicable notification. (ii) Whether furnace oil, lubricants and similar goods sold on the strength of Form 18 declarations could be denied concessional treatment on the footing that they were used only as fuel and not as raw material.

Issue (i): Whether sales made to BSES Kerala Power Ltd. qualified for concessional rate of tax as sales to a joint sector undertaking under the applicable notification.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already applied its earlier decision on the same assessee and similar notification framework, and the earlier revision against that decision had been dismissed. On that basis, the Tribunal was justified in following its own earlier view. The record did not disclose any error in the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's claim to the notified concession for sales to the purchaser concerned.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee, and the concessional rate of tax could not be denied on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether furnace oil, lubricants and similar goods sold on the strength of Form 18 declarations could be denied concessional treatment on the footing that they were used only as fuel and not as raw material.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was that the selling dealer acted on valid statutory declarations furnished by the purchasing dealer. In such circumstances, the seller is not required to independently verify the purchaser's ultimate use of the goods. If the goods were misused or not applied as declared, the consequence would lie against the purchasing dealer, not the selling dealer who relied on the prescribed form.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee, and the concessional rate of tax could not be denied merely because of the alleged end use by the purchaser.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because no ground was made out to disturb the Tribunal's grant of relief to the assessee on either issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A selling dealer who receives and relies upon a valid statutory declaration in the prescribed form is entitled to the notified concessional rate, and the Revenue must proceed against the purchaser if the declared end use is disputed.

---