Judgment S. K. Jha, J. 1. In this reference under Sec.33 (1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, has referred the following question of law for our opinion : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claim of the dealer for the concessional rate of tax under Sec.6a of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, can be allowed only from 14th December, 1962, and not from 1st November, 1962. 2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the question under consideration may be stated thus. The assessee, a registered dealer under the Act, was originally assessed for the year 1962-63, with which year we are concerned in this case, by the assessing authority by his order dated 3rd November, 1965, in which a claim of Rs.29,32,483.17 for concessional rate of tax at one per centum under Sec.6a of the Act was admitted in full for the period 1st November, 1962, to 31st March, 1963. It may be mentioned here that Sec.6a was inserted in the statute book with effect from 1st November, 1962. Subsequently, proceedings under Sec.18 (1) of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer on 30th November, 1965, on the ground that the concessional rate of tax was wrongly allowed to the assessee from 1st November, 1962, the date on which Sec.6a came into force. The assessing officer was of the view that the allowance of concessional rate of tax should have been made from 3rd January, 1963, which was the date on which rules 4a and 8a of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), were notified. These proceedings culminated in a revised order of assessment dated 23rd December, 1965, in which the concessional rate of tax was allowed to the assessee only on Rs.15,84,397.71 being the turnover on the commodities specified for the period between 3rd January, 1963, and 31st March, 1963. The dealer having gone up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and its appeal having failed, it went up in revision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 28th November, 1970, held that the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax at one per centum with effect from 14th December, 1962. The dealer having gone up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and its appeal having failed, it went up in revision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 28th November, 1970, held that the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax at one per centum with effect from 14th December, 1962. The contention of the assessee that it was entitled to such a concessional rate with effect from 1st November, 1962, was repelled as was also the contention on behalf of the department that the dealer, on the facts of the present case, was entitled to such a concessional rate with effect from 3rd January, 1963, only. 3. The question for determination in this reference really turns upon a true construction of the provisions of Sec.6a (1) (b) and 6a (2) read with rules 4a and 8a. But before adverting to the relevant provisions of law mentioned above, the admitted facts in this case and the rival contentions may be mentioned as these. Sec.6a of the Act, as already stated, was inserted by Sec.5 of Bihar Act 20 of 1962 and by a notification dated 27th October, 1962, it was made to come into force with effect from 1st November, 1962. Rules 4a and 8a in the Rules relating to the certificate under Sec.6a were inserted by Notification No. STGL-AR-1021/62 C. T.-ll F. T. dated 3rd January, 1963, published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, of the same date. The last mentioned notification did not specify the date from which these rules were to come into force. The assessees claim related to its sales to two registered dealers which were two firms, namely, Messrs. Rohtas Industries Ltd. and Messrs. Asoka Cement Ltd. Both these firms filed application for issue of certificates under Sec.6a and the certificates were issued to both of them on 14th December, 1962, making them operative with effect from 1st November, 1962. In the required declaration submitted by the assessee in form IX a claim was made with regard to the concessional rate of tax on account of sales having been made to the aforesaid two firms for the period commencing from 1st November, 1962, which was the date from which the certificates had been made effective, although the date of issue of the certificates to those two firms was, as already stated above, 14th December, 1962. The learned Standing Counsel I for the department contended that reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above together would lead to a conclusion that the date, from which the certificates under Sec.6a granted to the purchasers, namely, the aforesaid two manufacturing firms ought to be treated as valid, was the date of issue of such certificates, i. e. , 14th December, 1962, and that no retrospective or retroactive operation could be given to the validity of such certificates with effect from 1st November, 1962, which the competent authority, in the first instance, had purported to do. Mr. Ramanugrah Prasad, the learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that on a reading of the provisions aforesaid, there was no bar against the authorities concerned under the provisions of the Act or the Rules so as to preclude them from granting a certificate under Sec.6a (1) (b) with effect from a date prior to the date of its issue extending back either up to the date of the commencement of the certificate of registration of the purchaser (as a registered dealer) under the Act or the date of commencement of Sec.6a itself, whichever was later. As in the present case both the date of commencement of the statutory provision and the certificate under Sec.6a (1) of the Act were with effect from 1st November, 1962, for the purposes of Sec.6a, the competent authorities had not in any way acted without jurisdiction or in any manner illegally in making the certificate operative with effect from 1st November, 1962. 4. Section 6a (1) (b) and (c) run as follows : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed : (a ). . . 4. Section 6a (1) (b) and (c) run as follows : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed : (a ). . . (b) sales to a registered dealer of goods required by him directly for use in the manufacture or processing of any goods for sale, or for mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity, and, (c) sales of machineries, tools, plants and accessories thereof to a person, firm, company, corporation or concern intending to establish a business in Bihar for the purpose of manufacturing annually goods for sale exceeding Rs.15,000 in value or for mining or generation and distribution of electricity, and in respect of which the purchaser has been granted a certificate by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period shall, unless the goods are taxable at a lower rate under Sec.6, be, subject to Sub-section (2), leviable to tax at the rate of one per centum. It may be mentioned here that the last few words "leviable to tax at the rate of one per centum" quoted above were subsequently changed and substituted by "leviable to tax such as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf not exceeding 3 per centum" by Sec.2 of Bihar Act 9 of 1964, with which we are not concerned. Sec.6a (2) reads thus : in case of sales under Clause (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1), a declaration in the prescribed form duly filled up and signed by the purchaser shall be furnished in the -prescribed manner by the selling dealer and the prescribed authority may require the selling dealer to satisfy him that the sale was made to the purchaser holding certificate granted under the said sub-section. It will thus be seen that the claim of the dealer to be assessed at a concessional rate is dependent upon the fulfilment of two conditions. It will thus be seen that the claim of the dealer to be assessed at a concessional rate is dependent upon the fulfilment of two conditions. The relevant Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), under which the assessee in the instant case is claiming the concessional rate, says that the sales to a registered dealer of goods required by him directly for use in the manufacture or processing of any goods for sale or for mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity shall be liable to tax at such rate as may be notified by the State Government (in this case one per cent) and in respect of which the purchaser has been granted a certificate by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period. This is the first condition, which has certainly been fulfilled in the instant case. The second prerequisite condition for the grant of such concessional rate is the requirement under Sub-section (2) of fulfilling the assessees obligation of furnishing a declaration in the prescribed form duly filled up and signed by the purchaser in the prescribed manner by the selling dealer. There is no controversy even with regard to the fulfilment of the second condition in the present case. The question, however, is as to what is the true meaning and purport of the words "in respect of which the purchaser has been granted a certificate by the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period". On behalf of the revenue, it is conceded that the words "has been granted" at the end of Sec.6a (1) presuppose the grant of a certificate at the time when the sale is made and this submission is further sought to be reinforced by the learned standing counsel on behalf of the department with reference to the words "to the purchaser holding certificate granted" finding place in Sub-section (2) of Sec.6a. In my view, however, this submission proceeds upon a fallacy. The grant of a certificate to the purchaser and the purchaser being the holder of a certificate granted in the prescribed manner for the prescribed period and by the prescribed authority is all that the statute requires. In my view, however, this submission proceeds upon a fallacy. The grant of a certificate to the purchaser and the purchaser being the holder of a certificate granted in the prescribed manner for the prescribed period and by the prescribed authority is all that the statute requires. If at the time when the declaration is submitted by the dealer, which declaration can be filed under the law at any time prior to the assessment, as is fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel, a certificate in prescribed form granted by the competent authority is furnished showing that the purchaser at the time of the relevant sale was the holder of a certificate, the statutory obligation is discharged and until and unless anything to the contrary can be culled out from the Rules, the relief of the concessional rate granted by Sec.6a to a dealer shall not be denied to him. The only two relevant rules which, as already stated earlier, were notified on 3rd January, 1963, are rules 4a and 8a. Rule 4a prescribes in Sub-rule (1) the mode and manner of making an application for a certificate under Sec.6a (1) and requires such an application to be made in forms II-A, II-B and II-C respectively in respect of certificates under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.6a. Sub-rule (2) enjoins upon the applicant the duty of signing and verification of the form in a particular manner. The only other relevant sub-rule of Rule 4a is Sub-rule (5), which, it is worthwhile to reproduce here ; " (5) A certificate under Sub-section (1) of Sec.6a shall- (a) in the case covered by Clause (b) of the said sub-section, be valid for the same period of the certificate of registration and shall be renewed in the same manner as that provided for the renewal of the certificate of registration and for this purpose all the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder regarding renewal of certificate of registration shall, mutatis mutandis, apply ; (b) in the case covered by Clause (c) of the said sub-section, be valid for three months from the date of its issue or such longer period as the Commissioner may fix in any particular case. The Commissioner may also extend the period of validity of such certificate from time to time. The Commissioner may also extend the period of validity of such certificate from time to time. It will be seen from the language used in Sub-rule (5) (a) that in the case covered by Clause (b) of Sec.6a (1) the certificate can be made operative and effective under that provision of statute for the same period as the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer itself. In other words, the competent authority is fully empowered, while issuing such a certificate, to make it valid for a period co-terminus and co-extensive with the certificate of registration itself. There is nothing in Sub-rule (5) (a) which deprives the competent authority of his jurisdiction to confer operativeness on the certificate for the purposes of Sec.6a (1) (b) with effect from a date which is actually anterior to the date of actual issue of the certificate under Sec.6a. This view is rather reinforced and very much focused to attention juxtaposed, as it is, to Sub-rule (5) (b) which covers the case of certificate under Sec.6a (1) (c) and specifically lays down that in such cases the certificate shall be valid for 3 months from the date of its issue or such longer period. . . . " In a certificate under Sec.6a (1) (c), therefore, the competent authority is powerless to make it operative with effect from any date prior to the date of its issue. And, the rationale behind such a distinction is manifest from the difference in the statutory provisions contained in Sec.6a (1) (b) and (c), for, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.6a speaks of such concessional rates with regard to sales of such machineries, tools, etc. , as are made to a person, company, or concern, etc. , "intending to establish" a business. Evidently, therefore, for a company, a person or a concern which is not actually doing business at the time when the certificate is granted, the operativeness to be given to such a certificate under Rule 4a (5) (b) must inevitably be for a future period and, therefore, a certificate is to be made operative from a future date or from a date commencing from the date of issue of the certificate ; for that purpose, the rule-making authority has used the term "from the date of its issue". Where, a purchaser is already holding a certificate of registration then the certificate under Sec.6a (1) (b) as prescribed in Sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 4a may be made to be operative from even before the date of its issue relating back to the period covered by the certificate of registration itself. In the present case, however, since Sec.6a itself was brought on the statute book with effect from 1st November, 1962, the certificate for the purposes of Sec.6a (1) (b) could not be extended further back to any point of time. But S-36-42 there was no legal infirmity in the grant of certificate under Sec.6a (1) (b) by making it operative from 1st November, 1962, although, in fact, the certificate was actually issued on 14th December, 1962. The reason for this, in my view, is also very clear. A dealer, who is not to blame in any manner, for no fault of his, is not intended by the legislature to be deprived of a relief provided in a taxing statute merely because the Rules are framed later or because of the time that may be consumed in filing the application in the prescribed form after its publication and the time taken in the grant of certificate itself by the prescribed authority. To take an illustration, if a purchaser has filed an application for certificate under Sec.6a (1) (b) on 2nd November, 1962, the very next day of the coming into force of the Rules, and the prescribed authority actually issues such a certificate to such a purchaser, say, 6 months later, can it be said that the intention of the legislature was to defeat the claim of relief to an assessee for no fault of his merely because the departmental authorities, for whatever reason, may take some time in actually issuing such a certificate Can it then be said that the purchaser and the dealer who sells to such a purchaser, who have actually done all that was required of them by the statute to be done, should be made to suffer merely because of the procedural delays in the grant of such certificates The answer to these questions, in my opinion, can be one and one only : the purchaser or the dealer dealing with him cannot, in the absence of anything to the contrary, either expressly or by necessary intendment, be made so to suffer. Rule 8a of the Rules in this context is relevant inasmuch as it says that a dealer who claims that any amount of his turnover should be assessed to tax at a concessional rate under Sec.6a shall substantiate such a claim by producing the purchase order, if any, cash memoranda or details and a true declaration in writing in form IX, etc. , by the purchaser that the goods which are the subject of sale are specified in the certificate of the purchaser and are required by him for the purpose specified therein. Such a declaration, as is the obligation of the dealer to furnish for claiming a concessional rate of tax, has, in the fitness of things to be filed before the assessment is made. Therefore, such a declaration is permissible to be filed even after the actual date of sales are effected. The learned standing counsel for the department, however, has urged that on the date when the purchaser has purchased the goods from the dealer if he is not holding a certificate under Sec.6a, that is, not in factual possession of it, then in spite of the permissibility of the declaration under Rule 8a being filed at any time thereafter the concession granted by the statute cannot be given, for, it is urged, on the date when the sales are effected to the purchaser in question the purchaser is not holding such a certificate. This submission, in my view, is erroneous for the simple reason that, if, as I have already held above, the prescribed authority has the power to make a certificate under Sec.6a granted under Rule 4a operative with effect from a date prior to the date of its actual issuance and if, as has been done in this case, the certificates issued on 14th December, 1962, have been made operative with effect from 1st November, 1962, it will not only be a legal fiction but also a fact deducible from law that the purchaser was holding the required certificate on 1st November, 1962. He will, therefore, be covered by the term "holder of such a certificate on that date". There is nothing which has been brought to our notice either in form II-B, form V or form V-C, which can persuade me to take a contrary view. He will, therefore, be covered by the term "holder of such a certificate on that date". There is nothing which has been brought to our notice either in form II-B, form V or form V-C, which can persuade me to take a contrary view. Rather, the form of declaration, namely, form IX, goes to support the view that I have already taken, namely, that it has merely to be-Certified that the goods ordered for in our purchase order No. . . . dated. . . purchased from you as per bill/cash memo, stated below supplied under your challan No. . . . dated. . . are. . . (iv) for direct use in the manufacturing/processing of goods for sale/ mining/the generation or distribution of electricity ;" and are covered by my/our Bihar Sales Tax Registration certificate/certificate No. . . . dated. . . On a consideration of the entire matter, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that there is nothing either in Sec.6a or in the relevant rules or in any of the forms mentioned above, which makes the prescribed authority powerless to grant a certificate and make it operative from a date prior to the date of its issuance. In principle, the view that I have taken is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathra Parshad and Sons V/s. State of Punjab [1962] 13 S. T. C.180 (S. C. ). The assessee in the case of Mathra Parshad1 was registered as a dealer under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and was assessed to sales tax on manufactured tobacco. On 1st April, 1954, an Act came into force, called the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954. The Government which had the power to issue notification exempting certain articles from the levy of sales tax issued a notification on 27th September, 1954, and included manufactured tobacco as one of the exempted articles in the schedule of exemptions. It was contended in that case on behalf of the revenue that since the notification regarding exemption was made on 27th September, 1954, the dealer in that case could not claim the benefit of exemption from any prior date. It was contended in that case on behalf of the revenue that since the notification regarding exemption was made on 27th September, 1954, the dealer in that case could not claim the benefit of exemption from any prior date. While repelling this contention on behalf of the department, Hidayatullah, J. , as he then was, speaking for the majority view, posed a question at page 184 : did the exemption in the notification issued on 27th September, 1954, have effect from that date, or from the beginning of the financial year ? and answered the question thus posed at page 188 in these terms : if the tax is yearly and is to be paid on the taxable turnover of a dealer, then the exemption, whenever it comes in, in the year for which the tax is payable, would exempt sales of those goods throughout the year, unless the Act said that the notification was not to have this effect, or the notification fixed the date for the commencement of the exemption. I adopt the same line of reasoning and hold that, since there is nothing either in Sec.6a of the Act or in any of the Rules fixing the date of commencement of the operativeness of the provision regarding the concessional rate subsequent to that on which the Act itself was amended, i. e. , 1st November, 1962, it cannot be successfully argued that the dealer selling to purchasers covered by Sec.6a (1) (b) and submitting due declaration as required by Sec.6a (2) should not be granted full relief with regard to the concessional rate for the period covered by the certificate granted to the purchasers under Sec.6a (1) (b ). 5 For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in answering the question referred to us in the negative. I accordingly hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the claim of the dealer for the concessional rate of tax under Sec.6a of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, can be allowed only from 14th December, 1962, and not from 1st November, 1962. The claim made by the dealer for such a concession from 1st November, 1962, was justified in law. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The claim made by the dealer for such a concession from 1st November, 1962, was justified in law. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to its costs-hearing fee is assessed at Rs.100 only.