https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158126 Rule 27C(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 was construed as directory rather than mandatory because insisting on production of the countersigned declaration in form XXXE at assessment could defeat deduction for inter-State sales of declared goods and expose the same goods to taxation at a second stage, contrary to section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(3) of the Constitution. The proviso to rule 27C(1)(b) was struck down as inconsistent with that reading, and the related trade circular was held not binding on quasi-judicial authorities. Dealers were left free to substantiate their claim by declaration or other admissible evidence. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158126 Rule 27C(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 was construed as directory rather than mandatory because insisting on production of the countersigned declaration in form XXXE at assessment could defeat deduction for inter-State sales of declared goods and expose the same goods to taxation at a second stage, contrary to section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(3) of the Constitution. The proviso to rule 27C(1)(b) was struck down as inconsistent with that reading, and the related trade circular was held not binding on quasi-judicial authorities. Dealers were left free to substantiate their claim by declaration or other admissible evidence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158126