Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioner is an assessee under the Central Sales-tax Act (for short, referred to as the Act) and he challenges the inclusion in his turnover of certain amounts which represent sales effected, amounting to Rs. 20,857.75 between 16-8-1962 and 31-3-1963, to dealers in Pondicherry. According to the assessee, these sales were entitled to concession in the matter of sales-tax while the assessing authority has taxed him at the full rate of 7% as against a reduced rate of 1 %. 2. Certain facts require to be stated to appreciate the contentions raised in this case. Pondicherry became part of India on 16-8-1962. The Central Sales-tax Act was extended to Pondicherry and the other French possessions in India on 15-1-1963. It was actually brought into force in these territories on 3-6-1963. The petitioner, who is a dealer in coconut oil in Kerala, was selling goods to dealers in Pondicherry. At the time be was assessed to sales-tax for the year ending with 31-3-1963 he put forward the contention that sales to dealers in Pondicherry were in the course of export and as such he was totally free from payment of any sales-tax in regard to those sales. He was greeted with treacherous success in this plea because the Sales-tax Officer accepted the contention and absolved him from payment of sales-tax and, as will be explained presently, he did not bother to produce the declarations which would have fetched him concessional benefits. Later on, however, the officer sent him a notice on the basis that a reassessment was called for, the turnover representing the sale to Pondicherry dealers having been wrongly omitted. The earlier assessment was on 29-11-1963, but the later proceedings were started on 6-10-1965. The assessee contended before the taxing authority that although the sales were inter-State sales he had produced the requisite declaration forms for sales amounting to Rs. 18.539.05 even at the time of completion of the original assessment but that the then officer had returned these forms treating the sales to Pondicherry dealers as export sales. He, therefore, pleaded that he was entitled to the benefit of a Notification issued on 23-2-1963 whereunder a concessional rate of 1 % alone was leviable. 18.539.05 even at the time of completion of the original assessment but that the then officer had returned these forms treating the sales to Pondicherry dealers as export sales. He, therefore, pleaded that he was entitled to the benefit of a Notification issued on 23-2-1963 whereunder a concessional rate of 1 % alone was leviable. The officer, however, negatived this plea on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the dealer had produced the declaration forms within the time contemplated in the aforesaid Notification. The App. Asst. Commissioner, to whom an appeal was made in vain, affirmed the order and before the Tribunal the same fate followed. Hence this Revision Petition. 3. Many contentions were raised here and long arguments were addressed, but we are sorry to say that there are no dividends accruing therefrom to counsel for the petitioner. He had argued that S.8 (5) of the Act, under which the Notification dated 23-2-1963 was promulgated, did not apply to the case at all and that it was really governed by S.8 (4) of the Act. He next contended that the Notification, in so far as it fixed a time limit of 3 months from the end of the year of assessment for production of declarations, was invalid and, therefore, he was entitled to produce these declarations even later. The refusal of relief on the score that his production of declaration forms was belated was, therefore, illegal. Finally, it was also stated that the Government of India, realising the practical difficulties faced by dealers in the various States, who sold goods to Pondicherry dealers, had issued certain directives to extend the concessional rate even though compliance with the production of C. forms and declarations had not been made. 4. S.8(4) cannot obviously apply to this case because it relates to cases covered by sub-section 1 of S.8 of the Act. It is equally obvious that S.8(1) deals with sales to Government and sales to registered dealers. The petitioner has no case that he sold to either category and, therefore, S.8(4) goes out of the picture. 5. S.8(5), under which the Notification dated 23-2-1963 has been issued, can possibly benefit the petitioner only if he produces the declarations contemplated therein within the time limited in the Notification. It is useful to extract the said Notification at this stage. 5. S.8(5), under which the Notification dated 23-2-1963 has been issued, can possibly benefit the petitioner only if he produces the declarations contemplated therein within the time limited in the Notification. It is useful to extract the said Notification at this stage. "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of S.8 of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), the Government of Kerala, satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby direct that in respect of the class of goods mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto, the tax payable under the said Act by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Kerala in respect of the sale by him from any such place of business of any such goods to any dealer having his place of business in Union Territory of Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam in the course of inter-state trade or commerce shall be calculated at the rate of one per cent of his turnover so far the turnover or any part thereof relates to such sale, subject to the condition that the dealer in this.State produces before the assessing authority within three months of the year next succeeding a declaration duly filled in and signed by the purchasing dealer in the form appended to this notification." If this Notification is valid, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has missed the bus because he has produced the declarations years later. He feebly contended that as a Tact he had produced these declarations within the time indicated in the said Notification but it is purely a question of fact which cannot be canvassed in this Court. Moreover, we have not been able to find any material which justifies the view that these documents had been produced as early as 1963 before the concerned Sales-tax Officer. We have, therefore to proceed on the footing that the declarations have not been produced within the three months period indicated in the Notification. The only surviving contention available to the petitioner, therefore, is that the Notification, in so far as it prescribes a time limit, is invalid. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling reported in 20 STC. We have, therefore to proceed on the footing that the declarations have not been produced within the three months period indicated in the Notification. The only surviving contention available to the petitioner, therefore, is that the Notification, in so far as it prescribes a time limit, is invalid. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling reported in 20 STC. 367 wherein the Supreme Court held that the limitation of time for producing C forms by a Notification issued by State Government purporting to act under S.8 (4) was a transgression of the powers vested in it under that provision. The Supreme Court took the view that "in the prescribed manner" may, perhaps, enable the State Government to indicate the mode in which, and not the time within which, things have to be done. There is no possible comparison between that provision and S.8 (5) of the Act with which we are directly concerned in the present revision. S.8 (5) gives the State Government the power, by Notification, to extend concessions. But it also clothes the Government with the power to indicate the conditions subject to which alone the concession can be availed of. It is not possible for us to hold, in the light of the amplitude of the language of S.8 (5), that fixing of a time limit within which a declaration should be produced is ultra vires the powers under S.8 (5) of the Act. In this view, the Notification is valid and the non-compliance therewith by the assessee disentitles him to the concession contemplated therein. 6. However, we wish to point out that this is a case where there is genuine grievance and hardships for the petitioner. He sold goods to Pondicherry dealers and prima facie these interstate sales would attract the provisions of S.8 (1). He would thus be entitled to the concession available to dealers who sell goods to dealers in the other States in India, like Madras and Mysore. Unfortunately for him, he could not draw these benefits for the simple reason that the Pondicherry dealers were not registered dealers at the relevant period. And for this, neither he nor the Pondicherry dealer is responsible, because the period in question ends with 3131963 but the Act itself was brought into force only on 3 61963 although Pondicherry became part of the Indian Union as early as 16 81962. And for this, neither he nor the Pondicherry dealer is responsible, because the period in question ends with 3131963 but the Act itself was brought into force only on 3 61963 although Pondicherry became part of the Indian Union as early as 16 81962. Therefore there is justice in the claim of the petitioner that he should not be in a worse position for selling goods to the Pondicherry dealers than he would have been, had he sold the same goods to any dealer in a neighbouring State. It is represented that in appreciation of this difficulty of the commercial community some directive has been issued by the Government of India to the various States with a view to see that dealers who had sold goods to Pondicherry dealers are not put under a handicap. We have no doubt that such a step, if it has been taken, would alleviate a genuine hardship. We are not concerned with the actual implementation of the relief contemplated by any such directive as it does not arise in this revision case. All that we need say is that the dismissal of this revision will, in no way, debar or disentitle the petitioner from claiming such relief or benefit as he may be entitled to on account of any other Notification or directive of the Government of India or of the Kerala State. 7. Subject to the above observation, we dismiss the Tax Revision Case. There will be no costs in the circumstances of the case.