Form C concession requires proof of genuine transactions; unverified invoices may be denied concessional central sales tax.

Concessional central sales tax under Form C depends on the dealer proving the genuineness and verifiability of the underlying transactions. Where verification from the corresponding State supports only one invoice, the concession may be limited to that transaction and denied for the remaining unverified invoices. The authority may scrutinise the contents of Form C before granting relief, and the dealer bears the burden of producing cogent evidence of entitlement. Reliance on a precedent arising from reassessment proceedings is not apposite where the claim is made in an original proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisionist was entitled to concessional central sales tax on all 23 invoices on the strength of Form C, despite verification from the corresponding State showing only one verifiable purchase.

Issue (i): Whether the revisionist was entitled to concessional central sales tax on all 23 invoices on the strength of Form C, despite verification from the corresponding State showing only one verifiable purchase.

Analysis: The claim for concessional rate was examined in the context of an original proceeding where the dealer sought to establish entitlement to the benefit of Form C. The record showed that, on verification from Rajasthan, only one invoice was reflected by the purchasing dealer, and the concession was accepted only to that extent. For the remaining invoices, the declaration was not supported by verifiable material. The burden lay on the dealer to prove entitlement to concession, and that burden was not discharged by cogent evidence. The reliance on the earlier decision concerning reassessment proceedings was held inapplicable because the present matter did not arise in that procedural setting. The authority was also entitled to scrutinize the genuineness and contents of the declaration before extending the benefit.

Conclusion: The revisionist was not entitled to concessional tax on the disputed invoices, and the disallowance of the benefit for the remaining transactions was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The demand of higher tax on the unverified invoices was sustained, and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an original proceeding where concessional tax is claimed on the basis of Form C, the dealer bears the burden to establish the genuineness and verifiability of the underlying transactions, and the concession can be denied where verification from the corresponding State does not support the claimed sales.

---