https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155401 Deduction for sales to registered dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act required proof in the prescribed statutory manner. After insertion of section 5(2)(B), rule 27(2) made furnishing declarations in Form No. XXXIV mandatory, and earlier substantial-compliance authorities were distinguished because they predated that amendment. The scheme of sections 5 and 8 was treated as complementary, so exemption conditions could not be relaxed by equity or alternative evidence. Compliance with the prescribed form and method of proof was therefore essential for claiming the deduction. en-us Sat, 29 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:31:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155401 Deduction for sales to registered dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act required proof in the prescribed statutory manner. After insertion of section 5(2)(B), rule 27(2) made furnishing declarations in Form No. XXXIV mandatory, and earlier substantial-compliance authorities were distinguished because they predated that amendment. The scheme of sections 5 and 8 was treated as complementary, so exemption conditions could not be relaxed by equity or alternative evidence. Compliance with the prescribed form and method of proof was therefore essential for claiming the deduction. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 29 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155401