Concessional central sales tax on yarn cannot be denied merely because Form D was filed instead of Form C.

A fiscal concession on inter-State sales of yarn was held not to be defeated merely because the purchasing Government departments furnished Form D instead of Form C. The notification was construed purposively in light of its object and the earlier policy to extend the reduced central sales tax rate to Government departments, so the absence of an express reference to Form D was treated as a procedural omission. The substance of the concessional scheme prevailed over the declaration form used, and the assessee remained entitled to the 2% rate. The Tribunal's order was sustained and the State's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concessional rate of central sales tax at 2% on inter-State sales of yarn under the notification dated 13.07.2001 could be denied merely because the purchasing Government departments furnished Form D instead of Form C.

Analysis: The notification granted a reduced rate of tax on inter-State sales of yarn to dealers outside Punjab, subject to production of Form C, but the Court read the notification in the light of its object and the earlier governmental policy to extend the concession to Government departments as well. It held that the absence of an express mention of Form D in the final notification was only a procedural omission and could not defeat the substantive benefit where the transaction was otherwise covered by the concessional scheme. The reasoning adopted the view that the substance of the exemption or concession, and not the mere form of declaration, governed entitlement.

Conclusion: The benefit of the concessional rate of 2% could not be denied to the assessee solely because Form D was furnished instead of Form C, and the revision was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the Tribunal was sustained and the State's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal concession intended to cover a class of inter-State sales cannot be defeated by the omission of a procedural reference to one declaration form where the statutory notification, read purposively, shows an intention to extend the benefit to the transaction in question.

---