https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277788 Section 3-D(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was held mandatory because it created a statutory presumption that every purchase within Uttar Pradesh was the first purchase unless the dealer rebutted it by furnishing the prescribed declaration or certificate in the form, manner and time required. Read with Rule 12-B, the provision was treated as the exclusive statutory method of proof, not a mere evidentiary convenience. Applying the mandatory-versus-directory test, the court held that strict compliance was necessary. In the absence of the prescribed proof, the assessee failed to displace the presumption, and the disputed foodgrain purchases remained taxable under Section 3-D(1). en-us Tue, 12 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Dec 2018 15:43:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277788 Section 3-D(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was held mandatory because it created a statutory presumption that every purchase within Uttar Pradesh was the first purchase unless the dealer rebutted it by furnishing the prescribed declaration or certificate in the form, manner and time required. Read with Rule 12-B, the provision was treated as the exclusive statutory method of proof, not a mere evidentiary convenience. Applying the mandatory-versus-directory test, the court held that strict compliance was necessary. In the absence of the prescribed proof, the assessee failed to displace the presumption, and the disputed foodgrain purchases remained taxable under Section 3-D(1). Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277788