Mandatory declaration form requirement governs sales tax exemption; alternative evidence cannot replace the statutory condition.

Furnishing the prescribed declaration form under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was held to be a mandatory condition for claiming exemption on sales to registered dealers. The proviso was treated as qualifying the exemption itself, not as a mere evidentiary requirement, and Rule 27A was read only as fixing the time for production of the form. The Court further held that the duplicate-form provisions did not confer a right on the selling dealer to compel duplicates or replace the form with other evidence. The exemption claim therefore failed because alternative proof could not substitute the statutory declaration.

---

---

Issues: Whether furnishing the declaration form prescribed under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is a mandatory condition for claiming exemption on sales to registered dealers, or whether other evidence may be substituted if the forms are lost.

Analysis: The exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was held to be subject to the proviso requiring the dealer to furnish the prescribed declaration form. The proviso was treated as qualifying the substantive exemption and not as a mere evidentiary rule. Rule 27A was read as fixing the time for production of the declaration and not as relaxing the statutory condition. The Court also held that the rule provisions concerning duplicate forms did not create any right in the selling dealer to compel issuance of duplicates or to substitute other evidence. The provision was construed strictly because it was designed both to grant exemption and to prevent fraud, collusion, and administrative difficulty.

Conclusion: Furnishing the prescribed declaration form was a mandatory condition for exemption, and the assessee could not rely on alternative evidence in its place. The contention of the assessee failed.

---