https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128346 A taxing exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 required strict production of the original prescribed declaration forms; secondary evidence, counterfoils, or other substitute proof could not replace that mandatory statutory mode of compliance. The court also treated the proviso and rule 27A(1)(b) as valid revenue-protective measures, holding that hardship or alleged loss of forms did not amount to legal impossibility and did not justify relaxation of the requirement. Section 21A was only an enabling provision for evidence and did not override the specific proof condition for exemption. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:54:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128346 A taxing exemption under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 required strict production of the original prescribed declaration forms; secondary evidence, counterfoils, or other substitute proof could not replace that mandatory statutory mode of compliance. The court also treated the proviso and rule 27A(1)(b) as valid revenue-protective measures, holding that hardship or alleged loss of forms did not amount to legal impossibility and did not justify relaxation of the requirement. Section 21A was only an enabling provision for evidence and did not override the specific proof condition for exemption. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128346