Sales tax deduction conditions under the Orissa rules were procedural, not mandatory, where statutory entitlement was otherwise proved.

Deduction for sales to a registered dealer under section 5(2)(a)(ii) depended on the goods being specified in the purchaser's registration certificate as intended for resale in Orissa. Rule 27(2), which required a cash receipt or bill and a declaration, was read as procedural and directory, not as an additional mandatory condition. Substantial compliance was sufficient where the Sales Tax Officer could be satisfied from the record or other evidence that the statutory requirement was met. A rigid insistence on the prescribed declaration would exceed the Act and defeat the deduction.

---

---

Issues: Whether production of the declaration prescribed by rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 was an indispensable condition for a selling dealer to claim deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, Orissa Act XIV of 1947.

Analysis: Section 5(2)(a)(ii) granted deduction for sales to a registered dealer where the goods were specified in the purchasing dealer's certificate of registration as intended for resale in Orissa. The section itself imposed no further condition. Rule 27(2) prescribed production of a cash receipt or bill and a declaration, but it had to be read in harmony with the Act. The rule was treated as directory rather than mandatory, provided there was substantial compliance and the Sales Tax Officer was satisfied, from the record or other evidence, that the statutory requirement regarding the purchasing dealer's certificate was met. A rigid insistence on the prescribed declaration in every case would go beyond the section and defeat the allowance contemplated by the Act.

Conclusion: The declaration under rule 27(2) was not invariably obligatory, and the assessee could establish entitlement to deduction by other satisfactory evidence. The objection to the deductions failed.

---