Holding

Section 8(5) exemption notifications are subject to the conditions of Section 8(4); a valid C‑form must be produced to claim the reduced rate of tax.

Summary

The respondents, dealers in edible oils and stainless steel, made numerous inter‑state sales and furnished C‑forms obtained from their purchasers in their tax assessments. A survey revealed many of these C‑forms to be invalid or spurious, leading the tax authorities to issue notices for additional tax and penalty. The respondents contended that the exemption notifications issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 did not require the production of a C‑form, and the Rajasthan High Court upheld this view. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the exemption notifications merely reduce the rate prescribed in Section 8(1) and are subject to the conditions of Section 8(4), which mandate the submission of a valid C‑form to claim the concessional rate. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with costs awarded to the State.

Issues considered

The exemption notifications under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act are self‑contained or dependent on the conditions of Section 8(4).
Whether the production of a valid C‑form is a prerequisite for availing the reduced tax rate under the exemption notifications.
The validity and genuineness of the C‑forms produced by the respondents.

Legislation cited

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956s. 8(4) proviso, s. 8(5)
Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957s. Rule 12(1)

Subjects

Central Sales TaxSection 8C‑formexemption notificationinter‑state salesconcessional tax ratepublic interesttax evasion

Judgment

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. A
v.
SARVOTAM VEGETABLE PRODUCT ETC. ETC.

APRIL 9, 1996
B
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
•
• Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: Sections 8(4) proviso and 8(5) .

Sales TUJc-lnter-State sales---Concessional rates of tax on-Exemption
notificatiott-Conditions for entitlement to-Held: not only conditions men- c
tioned in notification but also those melltioned in Section 8(4) must be
satisfied-Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957, Rule
12(1).

Sales Tcre-Inter-State Sales--Exemption notification-Benefit of-Sub- D
mission of Fonn C-&tension of time for-Supreme Court's decision in
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. case-Directed to be followed
by authorities.

The respondents--assesses were manufacturers and/or dealers in
edible oils and stainless steel sheets. They effected a large number of E
inter-State sales. They obtained C-forms vide Rule 12(1) of Central Sales
Tax (Registration ad Turnover) Rules, 1957 from the purchasing dealers
and submitted in their assessment proceedings. On survey and inquiry, it
was found that many of the C-forms were either not valid or not genuine.
Some of them were found to have been issued to dealers other than the F
respondents. Notices were issued calling upon them to show-cause why
additional tax and 11enalty be not levied and recovered from them. It was
at that stage that the respondents approached the High Court by way of
writ petitions contending that since the inter-State sales effected by them
were covered hy the Exemption Notifications and because the said notifica-
tions did not require the production of a C-form as a condition for availing G
the exemption provided thereby, they were under no obligation to produce
the same and no action could be taken against them for producing alleged
invalid or spurious C-forms. This contention of the assessee was upheld
by the High Court. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant-
State preferred to present appeal. H
129
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : l.l. Section 8(5) of Central Sal~s Tax Act, 1956 empowers
the State Government to grant exemption from sales tax either wholly or
partially. Sub-section (5) of Section 8 is an integral part of Section 8 and
the Act as such. The said power of exemption has to be exercised in public
B
interest. The power of exemption and its exercise is to be guided by and be
consistent with the provisions of the Act. M~re important, the levy ~f
central sales tax and the prescription of rate is not by the notifications but
by the Act itself. Section 8(1)prescribes the rate and sub-section (4) the
condition that has to be satisfied for availing of the rate in sub-section (i).
C What the notifications do is to reduce the rate prescribed by Section 8(i)
further, subject to certain conditions. The cojlditions prescribed by the
notifications are the conditions prescribed for availing the further reduc-
tion of rate provided by the notification. The notifications merely reduce
the rate of tax; they do not do away with the levy altogether. All that the
D notifications have done is to reduce the rate of tax from 4% to 1-1/2%
(2-1/2%, as the case may be). Separate conditions are prescribed for
availing the rate (Which itself is a concessional rate) prescribed in Section
8(i) and for availing the further reduction provided by the Notification.
Those two sets of conditions are prescribed by Section 8(4) and by the
notifications respectively. [138-E-H; 139-A]
E
1.2. One cannot conceive of the aforesaid notifications independent,
of, or apart from Section 8(1). They merely reduce the rate in Section8(1)
as already mentioned. One must first satisfy the condition in Section 8(4)
to become eligible for the concessional rate in Section 8(1). It is only
F thereafter that he can claim the benefit of the said notifications, for which
purpose again he has to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Notifica-
tions. It is therefore wrong to think that Section 8(5) or the notifications
are self-contained and operate de hors the other provisions of the
Act/Rules. Hence production of C-form vide Rule 12(1), of Central Sales
Tax (Registration and turn - over) Rules, 1957,is essential for availing the
G benefit of the notifications. [139-B]

1.3. As regards to extension of time for filing the C· forms is
concerned the proviso to Section 8(4) of the Act has been interpreted by
this Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. case. It it
H obvious that the said decision shall guide the authorities in the matter. So
;

STATE v. SARVOTAMVEGETABLE [JEEVAN REDDY,J.J 131

far as the validity or genuineness or those forms is concerned, that is a A
question or fact to be decided in each given case. (139-H; 140-A-B]

State of A.P. & Ors. v. M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos Ceme11t Productio11
Ltd. & Oi>., [1994] 5 SCC 100, relied on.

McDowell and Company v. Sales Tax Office1; (1972] 4 SCC, held B
inapplicable.

' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5969 of
1994 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.93 of the Rajasthan High C
Gourt in D.B.C.S.A (W) No. 317 of 1993.

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Sushi! Kr. Jain for the
appellants.

Barish N. Salve, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Meenakshi, D
Pallav Shishodia and A.P. Medh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. These appeals are preferred against the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowing a batch E
of special appeal filed by the respondents-assessees.The special appeals
were preferred against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge of
that Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them. The matter arises
under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The respondents-assessees are manufacturers and/or dealers in F
edible oils and stainless steel sheets. During the relevant years, they ef-
fected a large number of inter-State sales to various dealers in Bombay and
Gujarat. They obtained C-forms from the purchasing dealers and sub-
mitted them in their assessment proceedings. On survey and inquiry, it was
found that many of the C-forms were either not valid or not genuine. Some G
of them were found to have been issued to dealers other than the respon-
dents. Accordingly, anti-evasion proceedings were commenced against the
respondents. Notices were issued calling upon them to show-cause why
additional tax and penalty be not levied and recovered from them. It is at
that stage that the respondents approached the Rajasthan High Court by
way of writ petitions contending that since the inter-State sales effected by H
•
132 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A them are covered by the Exemption Notifications dated 26th December,
1986/17th April, 1990 and because the said notificalions do not require the
production of a C-form as a condition for availing the exemption provided
thereby, they were under no obligation to produce the same and no action
can be taken against them for producing alleged invalid or spurious C-
forms. It was, of course, their case that if the C-Forms are found to be
B invalid or spurious, the responsibility lies upon the purchasing dealers who
issued them and that they themselves were in no way responsible therefor.
The learned Single Judge disagreed with the legal submission (based upon
Exemption Notifications) put forward by the respondents and dismissed
their writ petitions. On appeal, however, the Division Bench has upheld
C the respondents' contention and allowed the special appeals (and the writ
petitions) filed by the respondents.

Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act prescribes the rates of tax on
inter-State sales. Sub-section (1) provides that "Every dealer, who in the
course of inter-state trade or commerce - (a) sells to the Government any
D goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer, other than the Government, goods
of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax
under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover." Sub-section
(2) says that inter-State sales not falling under sub-section (1) shall be
liable to be charged at the higher rates mentioned t)lerein. Sub-section (3)
specifies the goods for the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
E Section 8. It is sufficient to mention that sub-section (3) contemplates
certain goods or class of goods being specified in the certificate of registra-
tion of the purchasing dealers, which are intended either for re-sale or for
being used as raw-material for manufacturing oth~r goods or for other
purposes mentioned in the sub-section.
F
Sub-section (4) then states :

"(4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any
sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the
dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in
G the prescribed manner. -

(a) A declaration duly filled and signed by· the registered
dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed
particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed
H authority; or
~TATE v. SARVOTAM VEGETABLE [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 133

(b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a A
registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly
filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Govern-
ment.

Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is fur- B
nished within the prescribed time or within such further time as
that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit."
•
Sub-section (5) confers upon the State Government the power of
exemption. The power of exemption can be exercised both with reference
to dealers as well as with reference to goods. The exemption can be granted C
either wholly or partially and subject to such conditions as may be imposed
in that behalf. Sub-section (5) reads as follows :

"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State
Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in D
the public interest, by notification in the official Gazette, and
subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, direct, -

(a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer
having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales
by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from E
any such place of business of any such goods or classes of
goods as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax
on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than
those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may
be mentioned in the notification; F

(b) that in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes
of goods as may be specified in the notification, which are
made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, by any
dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class G
of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any
person or to such class of persons as may be specified in the
notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax
on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than
those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may
be mentioned in the notification." H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A The scheme of Section 8, insofar as it is relevant herein is this :
sub-section (1) of Section 8 prescribed a lower rate of Central Sales Tax
on two types of inter-State Sales viz., (a) sales to Government of any goods
and (b) sales lo registered dealer, other than the government, goods of the
description referred to in sub-section (3) which. may be referred lo
hereinafter referred to as 'specified goods' for the sake of convenience. 77re
B rate of tax in these two cases is 4 per cent. So far as the sales to Govemment
are concemed, there is no res(liction as to the type or nature of goods sold.
All inter-State mies to Govemment of any goods whatsoever fall under clause
(a) of sub-section ( 1). But so far as sales to registered dealers (other than
Govenunent) are concemed, they must be sales of Specified goods 011ly to
C become eligible to claim the lower rate in sub-sectio11 ( 1). 77re sales not falling
under sub-section (1) are taxed at higher rates provided in sub-section (2).
(We are not refe1TCd to sub-sectio11 (2-A) because it is 11ot relevant for the
present pwposes.) Sub-section (3) specifies the goods for the pwposes of
Section 8 (l)(b). Sub-section (4) is really in the nature of a proviso to
sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) imposes a condition which must be satisfied
D by the dealer seeki11g to avail of the rate of tax provided by by sub-section ( 1).
77re condition presc1ibed by sub-section (4) is (a) if Ifie goods are sold to a
registered dealer, the selling dealer assessee should fumish to his assessing
officer a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer purchas-
ing the goods containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form
obtained from the prescribed authority. (b) if the goo(ls are sold to Govern-
E ment, not being a registered dealer, a ce1tificate in the prescribed form duly
filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Government should be
furnished by the selling dealer - assessee to his assessing authority. The
Rules made under the Act prescribe the forms in: which the aforesaid
declaration and certificate, as the case may be, has to be issued by the
purchasing dealer, Government. In the case of Government it is called
F
D-form (certificate) and in the case of registered dealers it is called C-form
(declaration) - Vide Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and
Turn-over) Rules, 1957. We shall refer to the contents of C-form alone.
The C-form prescribed by the Rules is titled "Form C-Form of Declara-
tion". These forms arc supplied by the appropriate authority under the Act
G to the purchasing registered dealers. It this form, containing all the relevant
particulars is issued by the purchasing dealer to the selling dealer, the latter
will collect tax (pass on tax) from the purchasing dealer only at the rate
prescribed in Section 8(1); otherwise, he will collect tax at the higher rate,
as may be applicable, prescribed by Section 8(2). The purchasing dealer
must furnish all the particulars required by the said declaration/form. They
H
STATE v. SARVOTAM VEGETABLE [JEEVAN REDDY, J.} 135

include (l) name of the issuing State, officer of issue, date of issue, name A
of the purchasing dealer alongwith his registration certificate No.· and the
date from which the registration is valid and - (2) particulars of the goods
purchased, of the Bill/cash memo/challan concerning the purchase and the
purpose for which the goods are purchased. It has to be signed by the
purchasing dealer. The selling dealer must produce these 'C' forms in his
assessment proceedings if he wishes to be taxed at the (lower) rate B
prescribed in Section 8(1). The purpose of the C-form is obvious: the
parliament wants to tax specified goods purchased for specified purposes
• (sub-section (3) of Section 8) at a lower rate but anyone wishing to avail
of the said lower rate must obtain from this purchasing dealer the 'C' form
and produce it before his assessing officer. Thus, clause (b) of sub-section
(1), sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) go together. (Similarly, Section
c
8(l)(a) and sub-section (4) go together.) The reason why the 'C' form
requires several particulars to be stated is to ensure that the concessional
rate prescribed by Section 8(1)(b) is not misused or abused. With the help
of those particulars, the appropriate authority or authorities can verify the
truth and correctness of the transaction. Both the selling dealer and D
purchasing dealer are under an obligation to abide by the said require-
ments of law; otherwise the very scheme underlying the said provisions
breaks down. This crucial significance of the 'C' form needs to be kept in
mind.

Sub-section (5) of Section 8 confers the power of exemption upon E
the State Government. As is well-known, almost every taicing enactment
contains such a provision. The exemption under Section 8(5) can be
granted either with reference to dealers or class of dealers or with refer-
ence to goods or classes of goods. The exemption can be total or partial.
It can also be subject to such condition as may be prescribed in that behalf. F

In these appeals, we are concerned with two exemption notifications
issued under Section 8(5). They are dated 26th December, 1986 and 17th
April, 1990 (which was issued in super-session of the notification dated
26th December, 1986). It would be appropriate to set out both the notifica- G
tions :

"Notification No. F. 4(92) FD/Gr. IV/82-41 Jaipur dated 26th Dec.
1986.

S.O. 153 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A , of Section 8 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of
· 1956), and in supersession of Finance Department Notification No.
F. 2(8) FD/Gr. IV/75-15, dated July 1, 1975, the State Government
being satisfied that it is necessary so lo Jo in the public interest
hereby directs with immediate effect that the tax payable under
sub-section (1) of the said Section by any dealer, having his place
B of business in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, of all
· edible oils excluding - (1) Hydroge\laled oils (including
'Vanaspali'), (2) Palm Oil whether refined or not, and (3) Refined
coconut oil shall be calculated at the lower rate, as in clause (a)
below, on the condition namely
c
(a) 1.-1/2% where the assessing author,ity satisfied that oilseed
purchased for the manufacture of such oil have been sub-
jected to tax in accordance with Secti~n -SC of the Rajasthan
Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajaslhan act 29 of 1954) or 2-1/2%
were the assessing authority is satislied that oilseeds pur-
D chased for the manufacture of such oil have been subjected
to tax in accordance with Section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales
Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954);

(b) Claim regarding partial exemption under Finance
E Department Notification No. F.4 (72) FD/-Gr.IV/81-18,
dated May 6, 1986 shall not be made ·and allowed.

(Pub. in Raj. Gaz. Ext. Part IV-C(II), datetl 26.12.1986)

Note : This Notifications was superseded by Notifications No.
F F.4(90) FD/Gr. IV/82-101 dated 17.4.1990 (S. No. 218)."

"Notification No. F.4 (90) FD/Gr.IV/82-101, Jaipur dated 17th
April, 1.990.

"S.O. 4 - exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5)
G of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act
74 of 1956), and in supersession of this department notifica-
tion No. F.4 (92) FD/Gr.IV/82-41, dated 26th December,
1986, the State Government being of the opinion that it is
expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby directs with
H immediate effect that the tax payable under sub-section (1)
STATE v. SAt<.VOTAM VEGETABLE [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 137

of the said section by any dealer, having his place of business A
in the State in respect of sale by him, from any such place of
business in the course of inter-state trade or· commerce, of
all edible oils excluding (1) Hydrogenated oil (including
vanaspali) (2) Palm oil whether refined or not, and (3)
refined coconut oil shall be calculated al the rate of 1-1/2%
B
on the following conditions :

(1) That such dealer proves to the satisfaction of the Assess-
• ing Authority that the oil seeds used in the manufaeture of
soch edible oil have already been suffered tax under tax Act
@ 3% within the state of Rajasthan; C

(2) That the dealer shall not be entitled claim partial exemp-
tion under Finance Department Notification No. F.!, (72) F.
81-18, dated 6th May, 1986 and as from time to time.

(Pub. in Raj. Gaz. Ext. Part IV-C(II) dated 18.4.1990)" D

A reading of the notification of 26th December, 1986 shows that the
exemption granted under the notification is not total but partial. As against
4 per cent leviable under Section 8(1), the notification provides that the
tax shall be paid at the rate of 1-1/2% or 2-1/2% as the case may be. The
exemption applies to and extends to all edible oils excluding those oils as
E
are specified in the notification. Further, the exemption is subject to a
condition viz., that the dealer claiming the exemption imposed satisfies the
assessing authority that the oil seeds purchased for the manufacture such
oil have been subjected to tax in accordance of which Section 5-C of the
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 in which case, the sales tax will be charged F
at the rate 0f 1-1/2%; in case the oil seeds purchased for the manufacture
of such oil have been subjected to tax under Section 5-CC of the Rajasthan
Act then the rate of tax leviable on the ioler-State sale of edible oils would
be 2-1/2%. there is yet another condition mention~d in clause (b) of the
said notification with which we are not concerned in these appeals and
G
hence in not being referred to by us. ·

The Notification dated 17th April, 1990 was issued in supersession
of the aforementioned notification. This notification too exempts inter-
state sales of all edible oils excluding ·certain oils mentioned therein.' As
against the tax payable at the rate of 4% under Section 8(1), the Notifica- 'H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A lion prescribes a single rate or 1-1/2% provided the two conditions men-
tioned therein are satisfied. The first condition is that the dealer proves to
I
the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the oil seeds used in the
manufacture of such edible oil have already suffered tax under the Act at
the rate of 3 per cent within the State of Rajasthan'. We need not refer lo
the second condition since we are nol concerned witl1 it in these appeals.
B
Now the contention of the respondents-dealers, which has found
favour with the Division Bench of the High Court is this : the notifications
and sub-section (5) of Section 8 whereunder it has been issued, are
'
self-contained notifications/provision. Section 8(5) empowers the State
C Government lo grant exemption subject to such conditions as they may
deem fit to impose in public interest. The notificatipns do impose certain
conditions. They do not provide that production of a C-form is essential
for availing the benefit of the notification. If so, no .such condition should
be read into notification. The only condition which a dealer seeking to avail
D of the benefit of the notification is to satisfy are those mentioned in the
notification and no other. In other words, the condition mentioned in
sub-section (4) of Section 8 cannot be insisted upon as a condition for
obtaining the benefit under the notification. We are of the opinion that the
said contention is misconceived and that the Division Bench of the High
Court has erred grievously in accepting it.
E
Sub-section (5) of Section 8 is an integral part of Section 8 and the
Act as such. The said power has to be exercised in public interest. The
power of exemption and its exercise is to be guided by and be consistent
with the provisions of the Act. More important, the levy of central sales
F tax and the prescription of rate is not hy the notifications but by the Act
itself. Section 8(1) prescribes the rate and sub-section (4) the condition
that has to be satisfied for availing of the rate in sub-section (1). What the
notifications do is to reduce the rate prescribed by Section 8(1) further,
subject to certain conditions. The conditions prescribed by the notifications
are the conditions prescribed for availing the further reduction of rate
0 provided by the notification. The notifications merely reduce the rate of
tax; they do not do away with the levy altogether. All that the notifications
have done is to reduce the rate of tax from 4% to 1-112% (2-1/2%, as the
case may be). Separate conditions are prescribed for availing the rate
(which itself is a concessional rate prescribed in Section 8( 1) and for
H availing the further reduction provided by the Notification. Those two sets
\

I

STATE v. SARVOTAMVEGETABLE[JEEVAN REDDY,J.) 139

of conditions are prescribed by Section 8( 4) and by the notifications A
;) respectively. One cannot conceive of the said notifications independent of,
or apmt from Section 8( I). Tltey merely reduce tlte rate in Section 8( I) as
already mentioned. One must Jim satisfy tlte condition in Section 8(4) to
become eligible for tlie concessional rate in Section 8( I). It is only tit ereafter
that /le can claim the benefit of the said notifications, for which pwpose again
B
he has to satisfy the conditions presoibed in the Notifications. It is therefore
wrong to think that Section 8(5) or the notifications are self- contained and
operate de hors the other provisions of the Act/Rules. The Division Bench
has unfortunately failed to appreciate the Notifications in their correct
perspective. We are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal is
unsustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The learned Single c
Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions.

So far as the merits are concerned viz., the validity and genuineness
of C-forms produced by the dealers, we express no opinion. That is a
1
matter to be gone into by the appropriate authorities under the Act in the D
proceedings which are yet to be concluded .

. We are unable to see how the decision of this Court in McDowell
and Company v. Sales Tax Officer 29 S.T.C. 163 = [1972] 4 S.C.C. 365 is
of any help to the respondents/dealers. In that decision, it was held that
since the appellant therein did not comply with the condition prescribed E
in the notification, it was not entitled to its benefit. The appellants' case
was that it effected sales to dealers in Pondicherry and Goa and that at the
relevant time the Central Sales Tax Act had not been extended to Pon-
dicherry and that, therefore, the purchasing dealers there could not issue
C-forms. The appellant contended that in such a situation, he cannot be F
compelled to produce C-forms in respect of sales to dealers in Pondicher-
ry. The said contention was rejected holding that since he had not
produced the declaration prescribed by Section 8 of the Act and the
notification, he was not entitled lo the benefit of Section 8(1) and the
notification. So far as sales to dealers in Goa were concerned, the benefit
of the notification was denied on the ground that the C-forms were not G
filed within the time prescribed.

Sri Harish N. Salve, the learned counsel for the respondents dealers
submitted that in case this Court does not affirm the decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court, this Court, may extend the time for filing H
'
I

140 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP.1S.C.R.

A the c-forms. We do not think that any such direction is called for at this
stage. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 8 has been interpreted and
explained by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mis. Hyderabad
Asbestos Cement Production Limitea & Ors. [1994] 5 S.C.C. 100). It is
obvious that the said decision shall guide the authorities in the matter. So
far as the validity or genuineness of those for)ns is concerned, that is a
B question fact to be decided in each given case. No direction can be given
in that behalf.

The appeals are allowed accordingly. The appellants shall be entitled
to their costs which are quantified at the rate of Rs. 5,000 in each appeal.
c V.S.S. Appeals allowed.

,