https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152376 Deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 read with rule 27A(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 could not be refused merely because declaration forms contained defects such as failure to strike out alternatives, missing particulars, later cancellation of the purchasing dealer's registration, or absence of proof of purchase orders. The governing provisions were treated as directory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. A later cancellation of the purchaser's registration did not invalidate forms issued while the dealer was registered. The revenue also failed to establish that the sales were fictitious or that the supporting materials were unacceptable on a proper appraisal of evidence, so the disallowance of deduction was held erroneous and the assessment orders were quashed. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:39:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152376 Deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 read with rule 27A(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 could not be refused merely because declaration forms contained defects such as failure to strike out alternatives, missing particulars, later cancellation of the purchasing dealer's registration, or absence of proof of purchase orders. The governing provisions were treated as directory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. A later cancellation of the purchaser's registration did not invalidate forms issued while the dealer was registered. The revenue also failed to establish that the sales were fictitious or that the supporting materials were unacceptable on a proper appraisal of evidence, so the disallowance of deduction was held erroneous and the assessment orders were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152376