Judgment 1. THE present petition is in respect of disallowance of the petitioners' claim to exemption from sales tax in respect of sales amounting to Rs. 24,150 made to Chandmal Agarwala who help a Registration Certificate under Bhowanipore Circle in Calcutta. I find from the previous assessment orders in respect of the present petitioners, that their books have always been maintained in a very satisfactory manner and that they always produced satisfactory evidence in respect of sales to registered dealers, sales of exempted goods and sales to places outside West Bengal. Even in respect to the period in question when the Commercial Tax Officer made his original assessment, he found that the gross turnover had been correctly given in the returns except for a small amount of Rs. 6,556-5-3 which did not matter, because the sale was made to a registered dealer and therefore it did not affect the taxable turnover. Similarly, sales of exempted good were checked and verified and so were sales to registered dealer. A details statement of this had been produced by the petitioners and declarations in proper forms were produced of all such sales. So the claim was found to be in order and allowed. This was on 10th March, 1949. Soon after that the Commercial Tax Officer made enquiries about the sales amounting to Rs. 24,150 made to Chandmal Agarwala a registered dealer of Bhowanipore, who was reported to have left the charge and to be untraceable. So a notice in From IX was issued on the petitioners asking them to show cause why the assessment should not be increased as the declaration was unsatisfactory. In his revised assessment order dated 2nd July, 1949, the same Commercial Tax Officer increased the balance "A" on two grounds namely :- (i) that the Commercial Tax Officer was not satisfied that the sales were really made to Chandmal Agarwala as the declarations could not be verified, and (2) that the Commercial Tax Officer should allow deduction on account of sales to registered dealers only when he was satisfied that the purchases have been duly accounted for by the alleged purchasing dealers, as otherwise dishonest dealers would make fictitious claim showing certain sales to have been made to registered dealers who are since untraceable. 2. 2. THE factor which influenced the Commercial Tax Officer in coming to this revised assessment appears to have been that the purchasing dealer was untraceable and so the tax on the corresponding sales by him was unrealisable. Besides, the petitioners had not given any clue to enable the Commercial Tax Officer to trace out the purchasing dealer. All that one can gather from the revised order is that the declarations could not be verified as the purchasing dealer was untraceable. And as the declarations could not be verified, no deduction could be allowed under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. I am afraid this is rather a novel proposition of law. The Act only requires that sales should be made to a registered dealer and that the goods must be specified in the purchasing dealer's certificate of registration as being intended for re-sale by him or for use by him in the manufacture of any goods for sale etc. The corresponding Sales Tax Rules (Rule 27A) requires the dealer to producer on demand a declaration in writing by the purchasing dealer or by such responsible officer as may be authorised in this behalf by such dealer that the goods in question are specified in the certificate of registration of such dealer and are required by such dealer either for use in manufacture or for resale. In actual practice what happens is that the dealer who sells the goods himself supplies a printed form to purchasing dealer in which it is stated that the purchasing dealers have purchased from the selling dealer goods worth a certain sum of money and that the purchases in question are covered by the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the number of the certificate being quoted. It is to be noted that in the present case also similar declaration forms have been accepted in respect of other transactions made to registered dealer by the petitioners. 3. ON going through the record I find that an enquiry had been made at the Commercial Tax Officer's office, Bhowanipore, and it was found that the signature of the purchasing dealer Chandmal Agarwala on the declarations in question differed materially from the signature on the application for registration of the purchasing dealer. 3. ON going through the record I find that an enquiry had been made at the Commercial Tax Officer's office, Bhowanipore, and it was found that the signature of the purchasing dealer Chandmal Agarwala on the declarations in question differed materially from the signature on the application for registration of the purchasing dealer. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes before whom the petitioners went on appeal found from this that the declarations had been manufactured dishonestly by the petitioners and he even went to the length of adding one thousand rupees to the petitioners' taxable turnover evidently as a penalty, and even suggested that the petitioners should be prosecuted for manufacturing a false declaration. 4. IT is curious to note that the learned Assistant Commissioner in his appellate judgment appears to have imported new facts which are not to be found anywhere on the record. He says that "the assessing authority after verification of one declaration filed by Sri Chandmal Agarwala holding R.C. No. BH/1202A found that this dealer is untraceable and the petitioner was directed to obtain fresh declaration from the proprietor as in his opinion the declaration was manufactured by the selling dealer. Having failed comply with this order the officer disallowed sales amounting to Rs. 24,150". The above statement of the learned Assistant Commissioner appears to be purely imaginary and not based on facts as found from the record. But the Assistant Commissioner had no hesitation in station that on verification of the signature in the declaration with the signature in the application of registration he found that these varied widely and he was confident that this declaration had been manufactured by the selling dealer (the petitioners). The learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in revision does not appear to have commented on the curious orders of the Commercial Tax Officer or of the Assistant Commissioner, thought they are both unjustified. The Commissioner also appears to have been influenced by the fact that the purchasing dealer was untraceable for some time and so the declaration could not be verified. He says that "the law throws the onus of proving the genuineness of the declaration on the seller and so long as this is not proved, the assessing authority is at liberty to refuse to accept the written declaration if he finds on enquiry that it is not genuine". 5. He says that "the law throws the onus of proving the genuineness of the declaration on the seller and so long as this is not proved, the assessing authority is at liberty to refuse to accept the written declaration if he finds on enquiry that it is not genuine". 5. I asked the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the opposite party as to what reasons the petitioners might have to suspect the genuineness of the signature of the purchasing dealer on the declaration in question. Naturally no satisfactory answer was forthcoming to this. The petitioners who conduct business at Ranigunj cannot reasonably be expected to go to Bhowanipore and verify the signature on the declaration form with the signature of the purchasing dealer in his application for registration. I may incidentally mention that the signature of the purchasing dealer with which the signatures on the declarations were compared and on which the entire case for the Directorate of Commercial Taxes directly rests is not on record and I have not had the benefit of examining it myself. So I cannot blame the poor petitioners for being unable to check the authenticity of the signature on the declarations. The entire conduct of the petitioners as revealed from successive assessment orders appears to have been thoroughly satisfactory and straightforward. The transaction in question was one out of many all of which were accounted for in the same way. When a purchaser or his representative goes all the way to Ranigunj and pays over Rs. 24,000 to the petitioners for the purchase of some goods and produces his registration certificate and given the number of it, it is only reasonable to hold that the petitioners would normally be satisfied that the purchaser was a genuine one and that the declaration was satisfactory. Had the said purchaser signed differently on other declarations given to the petitioners the petitioners might reasonably have been suspicious about the genuineness of the signature and might have wanted to verify them. But in the absence of any such circumstances, I cannot but hold that the petitioners did all that they could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the requirements of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act and also the Sales Tax Rule 27A. 6. I need hardly point out that a seller cannot he held responsible for the movements of a purchaser. 6. I need hardly point out that a seller cannot he held responsible for the movements of a purchaser. The fact that the purchasing dealer is untraceable is wholly irrelevant in a matter of assessment as the Board has held already in another case. There is on evidence before me to conclude that the declarations are not genuine or that they were manufactured by the petitioners. So the petition for revision is allowed. The claim for deduction of Rs. 24,150 from the gross turnover in order to arrive at a taxable turnover is allowed. The assessment should be revised accordingly.