JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Statement of case has been received on the following questions of law arising out of the Second Appellate Order under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for answer by this Court at the instance of the dealer. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal. Orissa, Cuttack was correct to hold that the production of official declaration form is mandatory for claim of declaration for sales made to registered dealers u/s 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Petitioner could be held to have committed cantravention of the second proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. 2. The Dealer registered under the Act carries on business of purchase and sale of iron and steel. In the year 1977-78' the dealer purchased scrap iron free of tax for resale giving declaration under Form No. XXXIV. A portion of such scrap iron was converted to M.S. Rods and the like. Another portion was sold to registered dealers free of tax. The Dealer was demanded tax on the turn over of scrap iron converted on the finding that the same was used otherwise than resale. and accordingly, liability accrued under the Second Proviso to Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act. In respect of a portion of sale to registered dealers free of tax on declaration in Form No. XXXIV, claim of the dealer for deduction of the said turnover was disallowed since the dealer was not able to produce the original Form No. XXXIV furnished to it by the purchasing registered dealers on the ground that they are lost for which Photostat copies of the same were furnished. On these facts the aforesaid questions of law are to be examined. 3. Mr. Agarwalla relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Ali Husein and Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack East Circle and Anr. (1988) 68 S.T.C. 319 , that original Form No. XXXIV, furnished to the selling dealer is not necessary to be produced in support of the claim of deduction of turn over for assessment. In the said decision it has been observed: ... v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack East Circle and Anr. (1988) 68 S.T.C. 319 , that original Form No. XXXIV, furnished to the selling dealer is not necessary to be produced in support of the claim of deduction of turn over for assessment. In the said decision it has been observed: ... Rule 27(2)(iii) as amended on 28th October, 1976 provides that the purchasing dealer is to make over the portion marked original to the selling dealer and is to submit the portion marked duplicate to the Sales Tax Officer who issued the forms and is to retain the counter foil of each declaration form. The three parts of the form when compared indicate that excepting the words counter foil, duplicate and original, all other requirements to be filled up are the same. Therefore, any part of the form No. XXXIV could have been furnished by the Petitioner No. 1 before the Sales Tax Officer. He could have produced the original made over to him by the, purchasing dealer or could have called upon the purchasing dealer to produce the counter foils in possession of the purchasing dealer or could have summoned the duplicates from the Sales Tax Officers issuing form No. XXXIV to the purchasing registered dealers. Approving the sales to them by furnishing form No. XXXIV. The Sales Tax Officer was not justified in stating that the rule being mandatory, the prayer of the Petitioner could not be allowed. 7. Language of Section 21 of the Act authorises the assessing officer to exercise the power of a court trying a suit under the CPC to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and also to compel production of documents. 4. Section 5(2)(8) of the Act provides that the deductions shall be proved in the prescribed manner. Rule 27(2)(i) provides that the declaration is Form No. XXXIV is to be produced before the assessing officer before assessment for getting the deduction. Original, Duplicate and counter foil in Form No. XXXIV have the same contents. Accordingly, it was held in the aforesaid decision that any part of the declaration can be proved. Manner of providing the Form XXXIV with others was also indicated. Original, Duplicate and counter foil in Form No. XXXIV have the same contents. Accordingly, it was held in the aforesaid decision that any part of the declaration can be proved. Manner of providing the Form XXXIV with others was also indicated. When there is no provision in the rules that by producing secondary evidence like Photostat copies of the declaration in Form XXXIV, the deduction claimed can be proved, the assessing authorities were correct in disallowing the deduction in respect of which the dealer produced the photostat copies. Decision in Ali Husein and Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I East Circle and Anr. (supra) is of no assistance to the Petitioner. 5. As regards the second question, consistent view of this Court is that conversion of M.S. Rods and the like from the scrap iron purchased for sale does not attract Section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) second proviso of the Act. See Konark Steel Industries v. Sales Tax Officer (1988) 69 S.T.C. 187 , Konark Steel Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (1988) 69 S.T.C. 202 , B. Agarwala v. Sales Tax Offier (1988) 69 S.T.C. 231 , Utkal Steels Limited v. Sales Tax Officer and Anr. (1988) 70 S.T.C. 228 , Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the Assessee. 6. In the result question in S.J.C. No. 80 of 1981 is answered in favour of the Department and against the Assessee. Question in S.J.C. No. 94 of 1981 is answered in favour of the Assessee. No cost. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. I agree.