https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144196 Rule 9-B(5) was held beyond the State Government's rule-making power because section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act required only the prescribed certificate in the prescribed form and did not authorise Form C as an itional condition for exemption. Rule 9-B(2), however, was upheld as a directory provision because it operated only as one mode of proving that the subsequent sale was to a registered dealer and was not the exclusive statutory method of proof. The exemption under section 6(2) could not therefore be denied merely for non-production of Form C. en-us Thu, 22 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:36:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144196 Rule 9-B(5) was held beyond the State Government's rule-making power because section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act required only the prescribed certificate in the prescribed form and did not authorise Form C as an itional condition for exemption. Rule 9-B(2), however, was upheld as a directory provision because it operated only as one mode of proving that the subsequent sale was to a registered dealer and was not the exclusive statutory method of proof. The exemption under section 6(2) could not therefore be denied merely for non-production of Form C. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144196