JUDGMENT : G. G. SOHANI, AG. C. J. and K. M. AGRAWAL, J. This judgment shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 694 of 1986, Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh. 2. By these references under section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Tribunal has referred the following four common questions of law our decision at the instance of the assessee : (i) Whether filing of original parts of declarations in "c" form is mandatory or directory under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the Rules thereunder ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate of tax as if it had filed the original parts of the declarations in "c" form, as it had filed the original parts in Maharashtra the assessing authority wherein was also sought to be summoned by an application for their production, and further the duplicate parts thereof were filed before the assessing authority in Madhya Pradesh ? (iii) Whether the condition of filing a certificate from the customs authorities, in the Notification dated October 29, 1963, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was directory or mandatory ? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to the exemption as it had otherwise provided by placing a certificate from the purchaser, Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. , that the goods were exported as a fact out of the territory of India ?" 3. The assessee is a Government of India undertaking. It is engaged in the business of extraction, purchase and sale of manganese ore. The mines are in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as also in the neighbouring areas of the State of Maharashtra. Manganese ore is despatched from the mines in both the States. 4. During the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee sold manganese ore to Jaypore Company Ltd. , Raigada. Part of the ore was sent from Maharashtra and a part was sent from Madhya Pradesh. The sales from Madhya Pradesh mines were to the extent of Rs. 18,779 and Rs. 4,22,945 respectively during the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. 4. During the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee sold manganese ore to Jaypore Company Ltd. , Raigada. Part of the ore was sent from Maharashtra and a part was sent from Madhya Pradesh. The sales from Madhya Pradesh mines were to the extent of Rs. 18,779 and Rs. 4,22,945 respectively during the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee claimed concessional rate of tax under section 8 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Central Act"), on the basis of photostat copies of duplicate portions of prescribed declaration in form C and the statement that the originals were submitted before the assessing authority in the State of Maharashtra. The claim was rejected by the assessing authority and the rejection order was upheld by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and also by the Tribunal on the ground that the original C forms were not produced. 5. During the same assessment periods 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee sold manganese ore to the tune of Rs. 43,51,628 and Rs. 40,89,799,23 respectively to Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd. , another Government of India undertaking, in the course of inter-State trade. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation exported the manganese ore to foreign countries through Bombay Port. The assessee claimed exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax on these on the basis of Notification No. 3008-2625-V-ST, dated October 29, 1963, issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 8 (5) of the Central Act by filing statements showing detailed particulars of sale of manganese ore to the foreign buyers certified by the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation. No certificate from the Customers Department in the form appended to the said notification, as per requirement of clause (ii) thereof, was filed. The claim for exemption was rejected by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite forms in terms of the notification were not filed. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee applied in the two cases of different years for references and this is how the aforesaid common questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal. 7. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee applied in the two cases of different years for references and this is how the aforesaid common questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal. 7. Form C given under rule 12 (1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (in short, "the Central Rules"), for the purpose of section 8 (4) of the Central Act consists of three parts : original, duplicate and counterfoil. In paragraph 7 of the statement of case, it has been mentioned that original C forms were not produced. In paragraph 6 thereof, it has been stated that the assessee "submitted photostat copies if duplicate portions of the prescribed C form before the assessing authorities". During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that it was incorrect to say that the photostat copies of duplicate portions of the prescribed C form were filed by the assessee. In fact, the duplicate portions of the form were submitted. The learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing for the Revenue possessed the original record of the case and after verification of the record, he made a statement that the learned counsel for the assessee was right in his submission. We accordingly proceed to answer the questions referred to us on the basis of the statement. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the requirements of submitting original declarations in form C under the Central Act and the Rules and the Certificates as per clause (ii) of the notification were directory and not mandatory. Accordingly the claims for concessional rate of tax and exemption could not be rejected. His further submission was that for the purpose of collecting Central Sales tax, the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh were acting as agents of the Central Government and, therefore, filing of original C forms before the assessing authority in Maharashtra was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 8 (4) of the Central Act and those of rule 12 (1) of the Central Rules, so as to entitle the assessee concessional rate of tax under section 8 (1) of the Act. He placed reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shivnarayan Jagatnarayan [1978] 42 STC 315 (MP), Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 121 (Bom) and State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co. He placed reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shivnarayan Jagatnarayan [1978] 42 STC 315 (MP), Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 121 (Bom) and State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co. Ltd. [1964] 15 STC 641 (SC ). 9. The learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing for the Revenue opposed the reference by placing reliance on State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. [1967] 20 STC 374 (SC ). 10. Section 8 (1) of the Central Act prescribes concessional rate of tax for a dealer, who sells specified goods to a registered dealer in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Sub-section (4) of section 8 provides : " 8 (4 ). The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner - (a) a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority; or (b) if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Government : Provided that the declaration referred to in clause (a) is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit. " Rule 12 (1) of the Central Rules says : " 12 (1 ). The declaration and the certificate referred to in sub-section (4) of section 8 shall be in forms c and d respectively. " It would, thus, appear that in order to obtain the benefit of section 8 (1) of the Central Act, the dealer has to comply with the provisions of section 8 (4) thereof by filing a declaration in form C in terms of rule 12 (1) of the Central Rules. In the present case, though the assessee did not file the "original" part of the form C, it did file the "duplicate" part of the form. As pointed out earlier, form C consists of three parts : "original", "duplicate" and "counterfoil". In the present case, though the assessee did not file the "original" part of the form C, it did file the "duplicate" part of the form. As pointed out earlier, form C consists of three parts : "original", "duplicate" and "counterfoil". All the three parts are identical in terms and they all form part of form C. It must, therefore, follow that the declaration in C form was furnished, but instead of submitting that part of the form which contained the word "original" and which was meant for being filed before the assessing authority, another part of the form, marked "duplicate", was filed. Section 8 (4) or rule 12 (1) does not say which part of the form was required to be filed before the assessing authority. It is the form itself, which by use of the words "original", "duplicate" and "counterfoil", gives an indication as to which part of the form is required to be filed before the assessing authority. In the light of these facts and the provisions of law, we are of the view that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 8 (4) of the Central Act those of rule 12 (1) of the Central Rules, so as to entitle the assessee to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 8 (1) of the Central Act. Accordingly the first two questions of law referred to us must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11. Section 8 (5) (b) of the Central Act empowers the State Government to grant total exemption from payment of tax in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, notwithstanding anything contained in section 8 of the Central Act by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification. In other words, where an exemption is granted by the State Government under section 8 (5) (b) of the Central Act subject to conditions, the dealer desiring to have the benefit of the exemption under the notification has to comply withe the conditions for such exemption laid down by the notification. In other words, where an exemption is granted by the State Government under section 8 (5) (b) of the Central Act subject to conditions, the dealer desiring to have the benefit of the exemption under the notification has to comply withe the conditions for such exemption laid down by the notification. In the present case, by Notification No. 3008-2625-V-ST dated October 29, 1963, the State Government granted exemption from payment of tax in respect of sales of mineral ores (metallic) and other goods specified in the Schedule given in the notification during the course of inter-State trade or commerce on fulfilment of certain conditions laid down therein. One of the conditions was about furnishing of a certificate from the Custom Department in the form appended to the notification at any time before the assessment. The assessee in the instant case wanted to derive the benefit of exemption without furnishing the requisite certificate under the notification. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in refusing to give to the assessee any exemption under the notification, because the condition precedent for claiming exemption from tax in respect of sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce laid down by the notification was not fulfilled by the assessee by its failure to file the requisite certificate under the notification. According to us, the filing of statements showing particulars of sale of manganese ore to the foreign buyers certified by the Minerals and Metals Corporation would not be sufficient compliance with the requirement of filing a certificate from the Customs Departments in the form appended to the Notification dated October 29, 1963. The last two questions of law, therefore, require to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 12. The cases relied on by the learned counsel for the parties do not require consideration, because they are quite distinguishable on facts and further because the view we are taking is not contrary to the views taken in the cases cited. 13. As a result of our discussion aforesaid, we answer the questions referred to us as follows : (i) The filing of original parts of declarations in "c" form is not mandatory, but directory under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the Rules thereunder. 13. As a result of our discussion aforesaid, we answer the questions referred to us as follows : (i) The filing of original parts of declarations in "c" form is not mandatory, but directory under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the Rules thereunder. (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitles to the concessional rate of tax as if it had filed the original parts of the declarations in "c" form, as it had filed the original parts in Maharashtra the assessing authority wherein was also sought to be summoned by an application for their production, and further the duplicate parts thereof were filed before the assessing authority in Madhya Pradesh. (iii) The condition of filing a certificate from the customs authorities, in the Notification dated October 29,1963 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, was mandatory and not directory. (iv) In the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was not entitled to the exemption even if it had otherwise proved by placing a certificate from the purchaser, Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India ltd. , that the goods were exported as a fact out of the territory of India. 14. In the light of partial success of the references, we leave the parties to bear their costs of the two references as incurred. .