- (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the State against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 31-10-1964 in case No. F. 9 (R. S. T.) 64-65. The only point urged before me is covered by paras 2, 4, and 6 of the grounds of revision. It is contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner has erred in holding the following S. T. 17 forms as valid, as they were incomplete and defective and did not carry the required particulars. It is stated that they did not show the name of the commodities purchased by the buyer and form No. 11936/74 did not even carry the name of the seller and the No. and the date of the sales memo: - S. T. 17 No. Amount. Commodity. Date of Sale. Rs. Np. 6135/21 152 25 Cottonseeds. 19-12-61 6442/59 100 55 " 05-01-62 6442/60 241 31 " 08-01-62 6442/61 261 12 " 02-05-62 6446/20 170 47 " 15-07-62 11936/84 583 75 " 15-07-62 1509-55
(2.) IT is contended that this is in violation of rule 25-c (l) (c) read with rule 25c (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules 1955. These rules may be reproduced below for facility of reference: - Rule 25-C (1) (c) reads as follows: - A dealer who is entitled to and claims - (i) exemption from payment of tax; or (ii) payment of tax at a concessional rate; (c) on sales of any such goods as may be exempted from tax, on the condition of furnishing declaration, shall in respect of each such sale, obtain a declaration from the purchasing dealer in Form 17 and shall, along with the return under rule 25, file all declarations obtained as aforesaid and also submit a separate list of such sales in Form S. T. 16: Provided that no declaration shall cover more than one transaction. Sub-rule (3) of rule 25-C reads as follows: - Before furnishing the declaration to the selling dealer, the pruchasing dealer or any person authorised by him in his behalf, shall fill in all the required particulars in the form and shall also affix his usual signature in the space provided in the form for the purpose. Thereafter, the counterfoil of the form shall be retained by the purchasing dealer and the other two portions marked original and duplicate shall be made over by him to the selling dealer. IT will be seen that these rules categorically require that a dealer who claims exemption on the condition of furnishing declaration shall in respect of each sale obtain a declaration from the purchasing dealer in form 17 and shall file all these declarations along with the return. IT is, further, laid down that before furnishing the declaration to the selling dealer the purchasing dealer shall fill in all the required particulars in the form. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that these rules do not carry mandatory rigour and that they are directory in nature. It was not denied by him that the 2nd and the 6th form did not carry the name of the commodity and the number of the bill and that the other forms did not carry the name of the commodity. The only ground on which he seeks to resist the revision petition is that the rigour of these rules is not mandatory as stated above. I find no substance in this contention. As will be seen from a plain meaning of the rules reproduced above, it is obligatory on the dealer who claims exemption on the basis of these forms to produce the forms duly filed in all respects. In coming to this view, I am strengthened by the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others (STC 1965 Page 607 ). It was observed therein that where a dealer claims exemption in regard to sales to a registered dealer, the furnishing of the declaration forms under Sec. 5 (2) (a) (11) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 issued by the purchasing dealer is a condition for claiming the exemption. It was held that the dealer has to strictly comply with the provision and cannot produce other evidence to prove that the sales to the registered dealers were for the purposes mentioned in the sub clause and that the dealer cannot get the exemption unless he furnishes a declaration in the prescribed form. It is admitted that so far as the rules are concerned, the provisions of the Rajasthan and the Bengal Rules are analogous. While coming to this view, the learned Judges remarked that there is an understandable reason for the stringency of the provisions. It was stated that the object of Sec. 5 (2) (a) (11) of the Act and the rules made thereunder is self evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specifier classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the twofold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration from the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconvenience, both of which the provisions of the said clause seek to avoid. To my mind, these observations apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case. I, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that the rigour of these rules should be deemed to be directory. As a result, therefore, this revision petition is partly accepted so far as is relates to this item. . ;