Judgment :- The Government is the appellant in this appeal, which arises out of the decree and judgment of the learned First Additional City Civil Judge decreeing the suit filed by the respondent in its entirety only disallowing costs. The suit itself was brought by the respondent for a declaration that the levy of additional sales tax for the year ending with 31st March, 1938, by the defendant Government against the plaintiff was illegal and for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendant from collecting the same from the plaintiff. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the Court below in great detail and I do not think it is necessary for me to traverse the grounds over again. The point that arises for consideration is whether in view of the fact that admittedly the respondent did not comply with rule 18(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, and also rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, the respondent would be entitled to the relief he claimed in the suit. The respondent has been a dealer in groundnut oil and cake. In regard to the assessment of such dealers to sales tax, there are certain rules which have to be observed by the assessing authorities. Rule No. 5(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, lays down :- "The tax or taxes under Section 3 or 5 or the notification or notifications under Section 6(1) shall be levied on the net turnover of a dealer. In determining the net turnover the amounts specified in clauses (a) to (k) shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer." * Rule 5(1)(k) says that all amounts which a registered manufacturer of groundnut oil (other than refined groundnut oil) and cake may be entitled to deduct from his gross turnover under rule 18 subject to the conditions specified in that rule, shall be deducted from the gross turnover. Rule 18 has got several sub-rules. Rule 18 has got several sub-rules. Rule 18(1) is in the following terms :- "Any dealer who manufacturers groundnut oil and cake from groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him may, on application to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area in which he carries on his business, be registered as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake." * It is not disputed that the dealer in this case, who is the respondent, is registered as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake. Rule 18(2) is to the following effect :- "Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and/or Kernel purchased and converted by him into oil and cake provided that the amount for which the oil is sold in included in his turnover." * The emphasis in this rule is on the proviso, namely, that the amount for which the oil is sold is to be included in the turnover of the registered manufacturer. The contention of the appellant is that the amount for which the oil is sold is not included in his turnover in order to enable the assessing authority to determine the total net turnover in accordance with rule 5(1)(k). In order to secure that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover by the registered manufacturer, rule 18(3) has been prescribed and it is in the following terms :- "Every such manufacturer shall submit so as to reach the registering authority not later than the 25th day of every month, a statement in Form A-9 in respect of the transactions relating to the previous month." Rule 18(3)(i) runs as follows :- "the aggregate amount of groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him and the total purchase price;" It is the contention of the appellant, and it is not disputed that the respondent failed to comply with this rule 18(3) of the rules. There are two or three things which are to be noted in this sub-rule (3) of rule 18. One is that there is a date within which the registering authority should receive a return from the assessee; secondly, the assessee should send his return in Form A-9 in respect of the transactions relating to the previous month; thirdly, the details which Form A-9 should contain are also specified in this rule. One is that there is a date within which the registering authority should receive a return from the assessee; secondly, the assessee should send his return in Form A-9 in respect of the transactions relating to the previous month; thirdly, the details which Form A-9 should contain are also specified in this rule. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, in so far as the respondent did not comply with this sub rule (3) of rule 18, he would not be entitled to any deduction in respect of the oil manufactured and sold, for, according to rule 5(1)(k) the condition is imposed that the registered manufacturer of groundnut oil may be entitled to deduct from his gross turnover all amounts under rule 18 but subject to the conditions specified in that rule and not otherwise. That is to say, if the conditions laid down in rule 18 are not complied with, then rule 5(1)(k) will not come into operation.The point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is as to whether the conditions laid down in the sub-rules of rule 18 are merely procedural or whether they will affect the substantive right given to the assessee to claim a refund or deduction of an amount equal to the value of the manufactured oil sold by the assessee. It is urged on behalf of the respondent that, if the various provisions in the sub-rules of rule 18 amount to a mere procedure, then certainly it could not be the intention of the Government, or the legislature, that the assessee should be penalised for failure to observe the procedure, in that he should lose the entire benefit of a deduction in his total turnover. I find it difficult to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that these are merely rules of procedure and their non-compliance shall not entail any penalty against the assessee who fails to comply with the same. The very purpose of rule 5(1)(k) seems to be that amounts could be deducted by the assessee from his turnover only if the conditions specified in rule 18 are satisfied and the conditions in rule 18 are quite specific and definite. The very purpose of rule 5(1)(k) seems to be that amounts could be deducted by the assessee from his turnover only if the conditions specified in rule 18 are satisfied and the conditions in rule 18 are quite specific and definite. One is that the manufacturer should be a registered one; secondly, that he should include the amount for which oil is sold in his turnover and thirdly, that he should submit on or before the 25th day of every month a statement in Form A-9 in respect of the transactions relating to the previous month and that he should also mention in that Form A-9 the aggregate amount of groundnut and or kernel purchased by him and the total purchase price and the total quantity of the groundnut oil manufactured, the amount for which it was sold and the amount included in the turnover. The idea underlying this rule seems to be that, unless and until all these details are furnished and the statement in Form A-9 is filed within the prescribed date, it will not be possible for the assessing authority to find out what exactly is the deduction that has to be given to the assessee while determining his net turnover as required by rule 5(1)(k). Therefore, though it may be easily conceded that a substantive right has been given to the assessee to claim a deduction in respect of the value of the oil manufactured and sold, still this substantive right is not independent of the conditions which are laid down in rule 18 which have also to be fulfilled by the assessee. It has to be noted that the non-compliance of these conditions within the time prescribed or the total omission of compliance with sub-rule (3) of rule 18 works a hardship against the assessees. In recognition of this hardship and to mitigate the rigour of it the Government would appear to have inserted a new sub-rule (3A) of rule 18 which gives discretion to the assessing authority to condone delay or even omission in any fit case according to the result of his enquiry. In recognition of this hardship and to mitigate the rigour of it the Government would appear to have inserted a new sub-rule (3A) of rule 18 which gives discretion to the assessing authority to condone delay or even omission in any fit case according to the result of his enquiry. Unfortunately, this amended rule came into existence only on 10th February, 1949, whereas the assessment which is now in question, relates to the year ending with 31st March, 1948, so that it is obvious that this rule, which has not been made to be retrospective in effect, cannot apply to the facts of the present case.Even so, with regard to rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, it is not in dispute that the assessee has failed to comply with that rule as well. That rule is to the effect that every person claiming a rebate under Section 7 shall submit to the assessing authority an application in Form VIII within three months of the delivery of the articles outside the State. It has reference to finished articles of industrial manufacture and provides for a rebate to be allowed of one half of the tax levied on sales of such articles for delivery outside the State, if such articles are actually so delivered. This rule also lays down that the responsibility should be on the assessee and that there should be an application in Form No. VIII within three months of the delivery of the articles outside the State. If such an application is not made within the three months' period, it again appears to be difficult for the assessing authority to know where exactly he stands with reference to the assessee in respect of the claims made by the him. No doubt, Section 7 gives a substantive right to the party, but it cannot be said that that substantive right stands by itself without being qualified by what is contained in rule 9 of the General Sales Tax Rules; so that it becomes evident that if any assessee is to claim the benefit given to him under the sections of the Act or other rules framed under the Act, he should comply with the conditions and terms specified in the rules before he could really claim the benefit given to him. If it was the intention of the Legislature or the Government for the matter of that, that these rights should be exercised by the assessees irrespective of their doing anything on their part in order that the assessing authorities may be in possession of full particulars and details of the transactions which the assessees carry on, certainly nothing could have prevented the legislature to enact the law in that form. But, not having done so, I do not think it is possible for me to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that these substantive rights are not affected by what are contained in the rules framed under the rule-making power vested in the Government.It is no doubt true that on moral and ethical grounds the assessees are put to considerable hardship. But it fiscal law moral and ethical grounds may not enter into consideration. On the other hand, if the Government is levying any arbitrary assessments against the assessees, while are not within the scope of any section of the Act or Rules, then certainly it is open to Courts of law to interpret the section in the strictest, form so as to enure to the benefit of the assessee. But, I do not think that such a case arises in the present appeal. I am therefore unable to agree with the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional City Civil Judge in his having allowed the prayers asked for by the respondent. The decree of the lower court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think that I shall be justified in ordering costs to the Government. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.