JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by S. D. DAVE, J. - The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following questions to this High Court under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, to deduct from its turnover of sales, those sales which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company against certificates issued in the prescribed form 17, on the ground that those certificates as signed and issued by Shri Bhagwandas Hirumal as the Manager of M/s. Lucky Trading Company, were unauthorised and, therefore, invalid because his name as the nominee was not entered in Part II of the statement attached to the licence issued in form No. 7 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to deduct under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, from its turnover of sales, those sales which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company against certificates in form 17 as allegedly signed by its proprietor Shri Govindram Samatmal as the licensed dealer, and for that purpose in holding that his signature in Hindi in the certificates could not be compared for want of material on record and also because his full signature in English did not tally with the material available on record ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the burden of proving the claim for deduction of sales effected against certificates in form 17 under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, to M/s. Lucky Trading Company was not discharged by the applicant ? 4. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the burden of proving the claim for deduction of sales effected against certificates in form 17 under section 8(iii) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, to M/s. Lucky Trading Company was not discharged by the applicant ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the applicant's claim for deduction on the basis of comparison of signatures adopted at the stage of the second appeal when no such basis was adopted by the lower authorities and when the applicant could not produce the above named Shri Govindram Samatmal as the proprietor of M/s. Lucky Trading Company, for confirmation of the signature on form 17 ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that when a question arose as to whether certificates in question were genuine or not, the selling dealer like the applicant in the present case, could establish that fact by other evidence despite the fact that the purchasing licensed dealer had not entered the signature in Part I of the statement appended to the form of licence and in spite of the fact that he had not given his specimen Signatures to the department in prescribed form 10 ? 2. The first four questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this Court at the instance of the assessee, while the last question, viz., the question No. 5 has been referred at the instance of the Revenue. 3. The assessee, M/s. Thakkar Pranjivan Harijivandas & Co., is a wholesale dealer dealing in resale of edible oil at Ahmedabad. The total sales during the period of assessment were to the tune of Rs. 3,18,84,108, out of which, the sales amounting to Rs. 19,04,914 were claimed against declarations in form No. 17. According to the assessee, the abovesaid sales were effected to the dealer holding licence for the purpose of the seeds for the purpose of resale. Out of the abovesaid sales, the sales worth Rs. 9,54,450 were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company, which was holding registration certificate issued on May 15, 1970, effective from May 1, 1970. According to the assessee, the abovesaid sales were effected to the dealer holding licence for the purpose of the seeds for the purpose of resale. Out of the abovesaid sales, the sales worth Rs. 9,54,450 were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company, which was holding registration certificate issued on May 15, 1970, effective from May 1, 1970. This dealer, viz., Lucky Trading Company, was also holding a licence dated July 2, 1970. All the sales were duly supported by declaration form, i.e., form No. 17. Anyhow, at the stage of assessment, the Sales Tax Officer had disallowed the claim of deduction against form No. 17 on various grounds. The Sales Tax Officer had taken the view that the sales in dispute were not admissible for deduction and that the declarations signed by the licensed dealer or the unauthorised nominee were not found to be genuine and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deductions against form No. 17 as urged by the assessee. It appears that aggrieved with the abovesaid orders and also of the order of imposing penalty in a sum of Rs. 10,000, the assessee had carried the matter before the Assistant Commissioner who had also confirmed the conclusion arrived at by the Sales Tax Officer on the grounds stated in the detailed orders. It was the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, that the assessee was not entitled to the deductions against form No. 17 as claimed by it. Anyhow, the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000 came to be reduced to an amount of Rs. 1,000 only. Against the abovesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, in, the first appeal, the assessee had approached the Tribunal by way of filing the second appeal. The second appeal filed by the assessee also came to be dismissed by the orders dated July 12, 1979. Later on the assessee had made necessary prayer for the reference of the abovesaid questions to this Court. As pointed out by us earlier, the last question has been referred by the Tribunal to this Court at the instance of the Revenue. 4. As noticed above the case of the assessee was that during the period of assessment the total sales turnover were to the tune of Rs. 3,18,84,108 out of which the sales amounting to Rs. 19,04,914 were claimed against the declarations in form No. 17. 4. As noticed above the case of the assessee was that during the period of assessment the total sales turnover were to the tune of Rs. 3,18,84,108 out of which the sales amounting to Rs. 19,04,914 were claimed against the declarations in form No. 17. Anyhow, the questions with which we are concerned would relate to the sales worth Rs. 9,54,450 only which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company. The Sales Tax Officer at the stage of assessment has disallowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction against form No. 17 on various grounds. The Tribunal has narrated the abovesaid grounds in extenso while delivering the orders, the detailed reference of which according to us is not necessary at this juncture. Anyhow, the Sales Tax Officer at the time of assessment had come to the conclusion that taking into consideration various facts and circumstances of the case, the declarations in form No. 17, could not have been accepted as genuine declaration. Not only this, but the Sales Tax Officer has gone to the extent of saying that the abovesaid transactions appear to be bogus and shady. 5. Going to the facts which have weighed before the sales tax authorities, it requires to be appreciated that one Govindram Samatmal had made the necessary application for registration on April 8, 1959, for carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Jolley Shoe Company. The address of the business given was of 83/1, Chokha Bazaar, Kalupur, Ahmedabad. In response to the application, registration certificate dated April 30, 1969, was issued in favour of Govindram Samatmal as proprietor of the business. One another application for the registration certificate came to be presented in the name of M/s. Lucky Trading Company, having a place of business at Devalali Bazaar, Kubernagar, Ahmedabad showing it as the additional place of business of Jolley Shoe Company. The nature of the business of the Jolley Shoe Company was to deal in the footwear, whereas the nature of business of M/s. Lucky Trading Company was shown as dealing in the edible oil and ghee. Govindram Samatmal had applied for licence on May 6, 1970 in the name of Jolley Shoe Company, in which M/s. Lucky Trading Company has been shown as an additional place of business. Govindram Samatmal had applied for licence on May 6, 1970 in the name of Jolley Shoe Company, in which M/s. Lucky Trading Company has been shown as an additional place of business. One Bhagwandas Hirumal had applied for the registration certificate for the business run in the name of M/s. Lucky Trading Company at Kubernagar, Devlali Bazaar, i.e., in the same premises where the abovestated M/s. Lucky Trading Company was conducting its business. In response to this application, the registration certificate dated November 16, 1969, was issued. Moreover, one Vasudev Bulchand, who was doing the business in the name of Bhavani Traders at the same premises at which the abovesaid two Lucky Trading Companies are carrying on the business was also found to be operating. This business was issued the registration certificate on April 2, 1971. Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer at the time of assessment had taken into consideration this eloquent feature of the case that three concerns in the name of M/s. Lucky Trading Company holding different registration certificates were trading which in the eye of law were independent of each other. It was also noticed with great pertinence at the time of the assessment that though the abovesaid three business were in the name and style of M/s. Lucky Trading Company, different persons used to run the business and that the business differed and that the proprietorship of the business also differed. 6. At the time of hearing of the second appeal before the Tribunal, the Government agent had pointed out many infirmities due to which, according to the Revenue, no reliance could have been placed on the declarations in form No. 17 for claiming the deductions. It was pointed out before the Sales Tax Tribunal that the required procedural formalities were not complied with, form No. 7 was not duly filled in, the conditions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the said form were clearly violated, the material part of the said form, i.e., statement in Part II was not filled in, and the intimation regarding nomination in prescribed form with the specimen signature of the so-called nominee was never lodged with the Sales Tax Department. The specimen signature of the licensed dealer aid not tally with his so-called signature in form No. 17. The specimen signature of the licensed dealer aid not tally with his so-called signature in form No. 17. It was also, inter alia, urged that the licensed dealer had stated before the sales tax authorities that he had no dealings whatsoever with the assessee. All the above contentions which were raised on behalf of the Revenue have been fully accepted by the Sales Tax Tribunal. 7. The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred to form No. 7 and especially to the conditions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 appended to the form No. 7. This form is being used under rule 15 and the relevant provision under which the same is issued is section 31 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The condition No. 5 would go to show very clearly that if the licensed dealer nominates any person to sign a certificate on his behalf, he shall forthwith enter the name of such person in the statement appended thereto. Therefore, the bare reading of condition No. 5 of form No. 7 would go to show that whenever the licensed dealer nominates any person to sign a certificate, he has forthwith to enter the name of such person in the statement appended thereto. The requirement of this condition is reflected in Part II of form No. 7 which is in respect of persons to be nominated by the licensed dealer. Part II would go to show that full name of the person nominated is required to be given along with the specimen signatures of the person who is being nominated. The signature of the licensed dealer is also required to be given in Part II. In case of the cancellation of nomination, the date of the same is to be provided in Part II of said form. 8. Going to condition No. 6 of form No. 7 it becomes clear that the licensed dealer or every person who is so nominated shall enter in the statement the specimen of his signature which he intends to use while signing a certificate and the specimen signature of the person nominated is required to be attested by the licensed dealer. Condition No. 7 makes it obligatory upon the licensed dealer to produce the licence before the dealer on certain occasion. Therefore, form No. 7 and especially the conditions Nos. Condition No. 7 makes it obligatory upon the licensed dealer to produce the licence before the dealer on certain occasion. Therefore, form No. 7 and especially the conditions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and the statement at Part I and Part II would go to show very clearly that with a view to make the procedure and formalities complete of form No. 7, various obligations have been cast, not only upon the licensed dealer but also upon the person who is being nominated to sign a certificate on behalf of the licensed dealer. Part I makes it obligatory on the licensed dealer to give or lodge with the department the specimen signature, while Part No. II makes it obligating both on the licensed dealer and the nominated person to carry out certain obligations. All these requirements have been inserted under form No. 7 with a dual purpose. They have been indeed imported in the Act and the Rules clearly with a view to have a fair deal with the assessee and the Revenue. The possibility of fraud being played at any juncture while claiming benefit against declarations in form No. 17 is clearly sought to be curbed. 9. Form No. 10 and form No. 11 also merit a careful consideration at this juncture. Form No. 1O which is prescribed under rule 16 is in respect of furnishing of specimen signature. The licensed dealer is required to furnish three specimens of his signature which he intends to use while signing the certificate in respect of The goods purchased by him. Form No. 11 which is under rule 17 is in respect of the intimation of nomination. While making a reference to form No. 7, we have made it clear that whenever a person is being nominated by licensed dealer under condition No. 5 of form No. 7 his name is to be entered forthwith in the statement. Part II was made clear by us earlier makes it obligatory for the person so nominated to lodge with the department his specimen signature. Form No. 11 would go to show that whenever a person is being nominated, the intimation is required to be given to the Sales Tax Department. Not only this, but three specimens of signature of the nominated person, which are intended to be used for signing are also required to be lodged with the department. Form No. 11 would go to show that whenever a person is being nominated, the intimation is required to be given to the Sales Tax Department. Not only this, but three specimens of signature of the nominated person, which are intended to be used for signing are also required to be lodged with the department. Thus, the joint reading of form No. 7, the conditions appended thereto and the statement in Part I and Part II along with form No. 10 and form No. 11 would go to show that not only the name of the nominated person is to be lodged with the Sales Tax Department but three specimens of the signature of a person so nominated which he intends to use for signing the declaration in form No. 17 are also required to be lodged with the Sales Tax Department. 10. Form No. 17 also makes the very position clear. The note appended to form No. 17 which is under rule 24(2) would go to show that the certificate can be signed only by the dealer holding the licence or by a person who is nominated by such dealer to issue the certificate and whose name is entered in the statement attached to the licence. In other words, the form No. 17 which the assessee in the instant case before us could successfully utilise for the purpose of claiming of deduction must have been signed either by the licensed dealer or by a person nominated by him and whose name is entered in the statement attached to the licence. This note appended to form No. 17 would, however, go to strengthen and support the view expressed by us earlier in respect of the liability of the licensed dealer and the nominee if at all is being nominated for the purpose of the issuance of a certificate in form No. 17. 11. The Tribunal after having a detailed look at the abovesaid legal aspects has proceeded to examine the factual aspect as emerging out from records. The case of the assessee can be divided or bifurcated in two parts. One is in respect of the declaration in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal. The second part of the case of the assessee relates to those deductions which are allegedly supported by form No. 17 signed by the person nominated by Govindram Samatmal, viz., Bhagwandas Hirumal. One is in respect of the declaration in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal. The second part of the case of the assessee relates to those deductions which are allegedly supported by form No. 17 signed by the person nominated by Govindram Samatmal, viz., Bhagwandas Hirumal. Out of the total sales which are under dispute amounting to Rs. 91,54,450 the deduction in respect of the amount of Rs. 2,39,844 is being claimed on the basis of form No. 17 allegedly signed by the nominee. The remaining amount of Rs. 6,94,606 is being claimed on the basis of the certificate in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal, the alleged proprietor of the business in the name and style of M/s. Lucky Trading Co. 12. So far as the certificates in form No. 17 issued by Govindram Samatmal are concerned, the Tribunal has refused to recognise the same on the ground that though the licensed dealer was required to submit the form No. 10 along with his own specimen signature the same has not been done. It is also taken into consideration by the sales tax authorities that the residential address of Govindram Samatmal which was of Kubernagar, Ahmedabad, was on enquiry found not to be real and genuine one. Moreover, Govindram Samatmal had filed an affidavit before the sales tax authorities on September 29, 1972, showing very clearly that he had no business in edible oil and that he had never entered into any transaction with the assessee. A great reliance has been placed upon this piece of the material which was available before the sales tax authorities : As the real dispute was as to whether the declaration in form No. 17 which was pressed in service was genuine or not, the assessee had tried to prove the abovesaid aspect of the case by the comparison of certain material which was before the sales tax authority. The assessee wanted to urge before the Tribunal that if in the view of the Revenue the abovesaid declarations in form No. 17 were not genuine or valid, it would be open to the assessee to produce the necessary material or evidence to persuade the sales tax authority to come to a view, which would be favourable to the assessee. The assessee wanted to urge before the Tribunal that if in the view of the Revenue the abovesaid declarations in form No. 17 were not genuine or valid, it would be open to the assessee to produce the necessary material or evidence to persuade the sales tax authority to come to a view, which would be favourable to the assessee. We feel that the abovesaid course which was adopted by the assessee and which was duly allowed by the Tribunal does not appear to be a correct one. Anyhow, without detaining ourselves, much on this point at this juncture we would proceed to examine the material which was utilised for the purpose of the assessee to show that in substance and in reality the form No. 17 was actually issued and signed either by the dealer or by the nominee. In these efforts the assessee had called the bank officers of three banks, viz., (1) Central Bank of India, (2) Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, and (3) Kalupur Commercial Bank with certain records of the bank with a view to show that the signatures of the licensed dealer, viz., Govindram Samatmal in the Bank records tally with the signatures in form No. 17 allegedly issued by him. The applications for opening the accounts with Central Bank of India and Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, were got produced before the department and it was sought to be urged that these applications have been signed by Govindram Samatmal in English script. Anyhow, this specimen of the signature provided to the bank for the purpose of the operation of the bank accounts were in Hindi script. The applications for opening the account with Kalupur Commercial Bank appears to have been given by one Mr. Chandiramani, the sales tax practitioner. The abovesaid application thus could not have served any purpose for comparison of the signatures. The specimen signature given to the abovesaid banks differed from the specimen signature given to the remaining bank. Therefore, even on the basis of the material produced by the assessee before the Tribunal, the purpose was not served. Anyhow, the fact had remained that for the abovesaid two banks, Govindram Samatmal had signed the application forms for opening of the accounts in English script while the specimen signature lodged with the bank for the operation of the account was in Hindi. Anyhow, the fact had remained that for the abovesaid two banks, Govindram Samatmal had signed the application forms for opening of the accounts in English script while the specimen signature lodged with the bank for the operation of the account was in Hindi. That takes us to the declaration in form No. 17 on the basis of which the assessee wanted to claim the deductions. By way of comparison of the signatures, it was noticed that the signature of form No. 17 had already with the specimen signature given for operating the accounts with the Central Bank of India and Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank. Because of this comparison, it was strenuously urged by the assessee before the Tribunal and before us also that declarations in form No. 17 which have been signed by the dealer Govindram Samatmal should have been accepted without any hesitation. But as pointed out by us earlier, the same dealer, viz., Govindram Samatmal had appeared before the sales tax authority and had filed the affidavit dated September 29, 1979, saying very clearly that he had no transaction in oil with the assessee-company. This is the circumstance which would strongly favour the case of the Revenue before us. If really Govindram Samatmal had entered into the sales transaction with the assessee and if really he had issued and signed the necessary declarations in form No. 17, then there would be no reason for him to appear before the sales tax authority and to state as indicated above. Mr. Pathak, learned advocate who appears on behalf of the assessee before us has made a strong grievance by urging that as a matter of fact the assessee should have been given a reasonable opportunity of cross-examining the abovesaid affidavit of Govindram Samatmal who had filed the affidavit before the department dated September 29, 1972. As indicated by us earlier and as we would make it clear later on, this was not a case in which the exercise by way of comparison of signature was a justifiable exercise. As indicated by us earlier and as we would make it clear later on, this was not a case in which the exercise by way of comparison of signature was a justifiable exercise. Anyhow, it requires to be noticed with pertinence that the sales tax authorities had taken a liberal view and the summon was also issued on Govindram Samatmal with a view to procure his presence before the sales tax authority so that the assessee can have an opportunity of subjecting him to the cross-examination with a view to test his say in the affidavit. Anyhow, this summon which was taken out for procuring the presence of Govindram Samatmal could not be Served and, therefore he could not be cross-examined by the assessee at the time of the hearing of the second appeal before the Tribunal. But only because of this situation, it cannot be said that no reliance whatsoever could have been placed in the affidavit of Govindram Samatmal dated September 29, 1972. Anyhow, to sum up the situation, we would point out that the licensed dealer had not given his specimen signature in Part I of the form No. 7. In the same way, the licensed dealer had not sent the form No. 10 to the Sales Tax Department as required. It is therefore, clear that though some signatures in Hindi had tallied, it could not have been urged on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal and even before us that the declaration in form No. 17 allegedly issued and signed by Govindram Samatmal should have been accepted for the purpose of granting the deduction. 13. The Tribunal has made a reference to two decisions on the basis of which it can be said that the case of the assessee on the basis of the exercise of comparison of the signatures could not have been accepted. The Tribunal has made a reference firstly to the Bombay High Court decision in New Prahlad Mills v. State of Maharashtra [1975] 35 STC 352. The Tribunal has made a reference firstly to the Bombay High Court decision in New Prahlad Mills v. State of Maharashtra [1975] 35 STC 352. As done by the Tribunal, we would also prefer to quote the observations of the Bombay High Court in the above said case which run thus : "The requirement that the certificate in form K to the Bombay Sales Tax (Registration, Licensing and Authorisation) Rules, 1954, should be signed by the purchasing dealer himself or by a person nominated by him as provided for in para 7 of form F issued to the purchasing dealer is neither a mere formality nor an inconsequential matter of routine, but a matter vital to the very validity of the certificate. Therefore, an assessee would not be entitled to claim exemption under the first proviso to section 9 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, of sales to a dealer holding a licence, if the certificates in form K issued to the assessee by the purchasing dealer were signed by persons, none of whom was nominated by the purchasing dealer as being the person authorised to sign the certificates on his behalf in respect of the goods purchased by him under the licence." 14. The Tribunal has also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607. This decision of the Supreme Court goes to show very clearly that the stringent conditions imposed for the purpose of the issuance of the valid declaration forms are made to achieve the two-fold object, viz., (1) prevention of fraud, and (2) facilitating the administrative efficiency. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under : "There is an understandable reason for the stringency of the provisions. The object of section 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder is self-evident. While they are obviously intended to give exemption to a dealer in respect of sales to registered dealers of specified classes of goods, it seeks also to prevent fraud and collusion in an attempt to evade tax. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well-nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. In the nature of things, in view of innumerable transactions that may be entered into between dealers, it will well-nigh be impossible for the taxing authorities to ascertain in each case whether a dealer has sold the specified goods to another for the purposes mentioned in the section. Therefore, presumably to achieve the two-fold object, namely, prevention of fraud and facilitating administrative efficiency, the exemption given is made subject to a condition that the person claiming the exemption shall furnish a declaration form in the manner prescribed under the section. The liberal construction suggested will facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences, both of which the provisions of the said clause seek to avoid." 15. Looking to the abovesaid two decisions, one rendered by the High Court of Bombay and the second rendered by the Supreme Court of India, it becomes clear that in such a case, the assessee shall have to establish that all the procedural formalities as required by the Act, the Rules and the pro formas were duly complied with in the strict possible manner. If this situation is not accepted, the dual purpose of the Act in imposing the stringent terms and conditions would be frustrated, it would be easy for an unscrupulous assessee to claim the deductions against form No. 17 on the basis of a claim which may not be termed as a well founded one. At the same time if these provisions are not to be strictly applied, it would create hindrance and difficulties not only in the way of the Revenue but also in the way of the assessee and other persons like licensed dealers. 16. Because of this position, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised by Mr. Pathak that on the basis of the comparison of the signatures as indicated above, the case of the assessee could have been accepted. Anyhow, as it becomes clear we have also examined the material which was appeared before the sales tax authorities with a view to satisfy ourselves that the view taken by the Tribunal is not an erroneous one. The only conclusion which would fall from the abovesaid is that the declarations in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal could not have been accepted and recognised by the Tribunal for awarding or granting the deduction. 17. The only conclusion which would fall from the abovesaid is that the declarations in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal could not have been accepted and recognised by the Tribunal for awarding or granting the deduction. 17. So far as the declaration allegedly given by the alleged nominee Bhagwandas Hirumal is concerned, the same difficulties would come in the way of the assessee. It should be noted that on facts it has been found that form No. 7 did not contain the name and specimen signature of the nominee. The necessary intimation in form No. 10 and form No. 11 was not given to the department. Because of this position, the case of the assessee regarding the validity of the declarations in form No. 17 allegedly issued by Bhagwandas Hirumal, the nominee, could not have been accepted. 18. The case of the assessee would have been entirely different and on a very strong footing provided it could have been shown before the Tribunal or before us that there was the specimen signature either of the licensed dealer or the nominee in Part I of form No. 7. It would have been also otherwise if it could have been shown to our satisfaction that the name and the specimen signature of the alleged nominee were lodged or forwarded to the department in form No. 10. The position would have been entirely different if the abovesaid two procedural formalities were completed so that at a later juncture it could have been established by showing to the sales tax authorities and to this Court, that the abovesaid specimen signatures do tally with the signatures of the licensed dealer and the alleged nominee used in signing the declarations in form No. 17. This not being the position, it appears that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not able to make out a case of the deduction against form No. 17 allegedly pressed in service. 19. As indicated by us earlier, the last question, viz., question No. 5 came to be referred to this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. 19. As indicated by us earlier, the last question, viz., question No. 5 came to be referred to this Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. Miss Doshit, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Revenue has urged that indeed the claim of the Revenue in respect of any tax would always rest upon the fulfilment of the charging provisions, but at the same time the case in respect of the available deduction, must always be made out by the assessee and that while examining the questions of deduction and especially the deduction in respect of form No. 17 there must be a strict compliance of all the statutory requirements as provided under the Act, the Rules and the necessary pro formas and if it is not done, it would not be open for the assessee to urge before the sales tax authorities to come to a particular conclusion on the basis of some evidence to be brought in by the assessee in a shape of compared signatures. Miss Doshit was required to raise the abovesaid contention before us looking to the fact that though the sales tax authorities were duly satisfied that the procedural aspect of the case was not complied with by the assessee, the assessee was permitted to bring something before the Tribunal in the form of evidence. One has to agree with the contention raised by Miss Doshit in respect of the procedural formalities which we have pointed out earlier. Making a reference to the two decisions - one of the Bombay High Court (New Prahlad [1975] 35 STC 352) and the second one of the Supreme Court (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 607), we have made it clear that the dual purpose of imposing strict requirement would be secured only by way of following those requirements without exception. If the statutory requirements were not complied with in the spirit and letter of the law, there was no scope for the assessee to urge before the sales tax authorities to permit them to bring some fresh material, with a view to support their claim before the sales tax authorities in respect of the deductions. If the statutory requirements were not complied with in the spirit and letter of the law, there was no scope for the assessee to urge before the sales tax authorities to permit them to bring some fresh material, with a view to support their claim before the sales tax authorities in respect of the deductions. The only question which was required to be considered by the Tribunal was as to whether there are valid and genuine declaration, validly and genuinely signed either by the licensed dealer or a person duly nominated by him in accordance with the provisions of law. If on the material available to the department or the Tribunal, the assessee was not able to satisfy them, then it would have been a close of the case for the assessee and the assessee could not have been permitted to bring forth additional material either you call it evidence or literature before the sales tax authorities. The case of the assessee in respect of the claim of the deduction on the basis of the form No. 17 must have been decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the material which was available to the Sales Tax Department. Before concluding, we would like to make a reference to the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. R. Kantilal [1984] 57 STC 279. It was a case in respect of the provisions contained under section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 and certain certificates issued by the purchasing dealer on the basis of which certain deductions were claimed. It has been pointed out in this decision that it cannot be said that the production of the certificate purporting to bear the signature of the purchasing dealer is conclusive. It is also pointed out that whenever the officer has some reason to suspect the genuineness of the signature, it would be open for him to verify the signature from the sales tax record. It is also pointed out that if the department thought the signature differ then in that case the assessee would be entitled to ask for the inspection and the signature of the purchasing dealer, etc., in the possession of the department. It is also pointed out that if the department thought the signature differ then in that case the assessee would be entitled to ask for the inspection and the signature of the purchasing dealer, etc., in the possession of the department. Placing reliance upon this decision, it was sought to be urged that if the department was feeling some difficulty to accept the same of the assessee, the assessee would have been entitled for the inspection of the record and the signature, etc., of the person who had issued the declarations enabling the assessee to claim the deduction. The Supreme Court decision to which we have made the reference earlier has taken a different view. Anyhow, as pointed out by us earlier, the exercise of comparison of the signatures has been made by the Tribunal and it cannot be urged even accepting the view of the decision that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity. 20. The Orissa High Court's decision in Nowranglal Agarwala v. State of Orissa [1965] 16 STC 271 says very clearly that the declaration which states that the purchasing dealer is a registered dealer may be correct so far as the statement of fact is concerned, but it may not be correct so far as the question of law as to whether the purchasing dealer was validly registered is concerned. Here, as pointed out by us earlier, the question is in respect of the validity and legality of the alleged declaration in form No. 17 issued by Govindram Samatmal or his alleged nominees Bhagwandas Hirumal. In view of this it was open for the Tribunal to examine the question as to whether the abovesaid were the validly issued certificates. 21. Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel for the assessee, has invited our attention to the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478. In that case as the facts would go to show the entries in the accounts of a third party were used to reject the accounts of the assessee and in making the best judgment assessment. The assessee's request for cross-examining the third party was denied. The question was in respect of the validity of the best judgment assessment against the assessee on the basis of the accounts of the third party. The assessee's request for cross-examining the third party was denied. The question was in respect of the validity of the best judgment assessment against the assessee on the basis of the accounts of the third party. It was held that since the material procured from or produced by H was sought to be relied upon for showing that the return submitted by the assessee was incorrect and incomplete, the assessee was entitled to have H summoned as witness for cross-examination. It was also held that the act of the Sales Tax Officer in refusing to do so clearly constitute infraction of the right conferred on the assessee by the second part of the proviso of section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The said decision of the Supreme Court on which Mr. Pathak has placed reliance would not assist him in furthering his contention before us in the instant reference, because of the dual reasons. Firstly, as pointed out by us earlier on more than one occasions, the case is in respect of a deduction which can be claimed by the assessee only on the strict compliance of the legal requirements. The second ground is that the abovesaid are the observations made by the Supreme Court while considering the relevant provisions and especially section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It also should not be overlooked that the assessee was sought to be saddled with the tax liability by way of best judgment assessment dependent upon the entries in the accounts of a third party. 22. Thus, on the examination of the factual and legal aspects of the respective cases of the assessee and the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction from its turnover of sales, those sales which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Company against the certificate issued in the prescribed form, i.e., form No. 17. We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in law in saying that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction from its turnover of sales, those sales which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Co. against the certificate issued in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal, the licensed dealer. We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in law in saying that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction from its turnover of sales, those sales which were effected to M/s. Lucky Trading Co. against the certificate issued in form No. 17 allegedly signed by Govindram Samatmal, the licensed dealer. We are also of the view that the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the burden of proving the claim of deduction of disputed sales was not discharged by the assessee. In the same line, we also agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as urged by him, even on the basis of the comparison of the signatures as indicated above. We, therefore, answer and reply questions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 referred to us and indicated above in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 23. So far as question No. 5 referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, we would say that the assessee in such case could not have been permitted to establish the claim of deduction on the basis of other evidence despite the fact that the procedural formalities were not strictly followed. We feel that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the assessee to have the abovesaid course. We, therefore, answer and reply question No. 5 in the negative Anyhow, this would operate against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference answered accordingly.