JUDGMENT ABDUL HADI, J. - This tax case (revision) under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 by the assessee, is against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated September 15, 1983, in C.T.A. No. 188 of 1982 filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. This revision actually relates only against that portion of the said order which allowed enhancement petition C.T.M.P. No. 296 of 1982 filed in the said C.T.A. No. 188 of 1982, by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made his submission only relating to it. The said enhancement petition related to a turnover of inter-State sale of Rs. 1,45,680.31. The assessing authority levied tax at the rate of 10 per cent on it under section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, negativing the claim of the assessee for the concessional rate of 4 per cent tax prescribed under section 8(1) of the said Act, on the ground that the requisite declaration in C forms prescribed under section 8(4)(a) of the said Act read with rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is defective and not valid. The assessee claimed such a concessional rate, inter alia, on a turnover of Rs. 2,14,152.66 in respect of different inter-State sales effected by the assessee. But the assessing authority accepted as valid only C forms with reference to two of the said sales, one for Rs. 57,750 and another for Rs. 10,723.13 and for the balance turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31, he held that the C forms furnished were defective and not valid. Therefore, he subjected the said turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 to tax at the above said rate of 10 per cent. But in the appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the C forms relating to the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 were in order and the defect pointed out by the assessing officer was not a material defect. Therefore, the said turnover was ordered to be assessed at the concessional rate of 4 per cent. But, since the assessee was aggrieved by another portion of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to another turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 were in order and the defect pointed out by the assessing officer was not a material defect. Therefore, the said turnover was ordered to be assessed at the concessional rate of 4 per cent. But, since the assessee was aggrieved by another portion of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relating to another turnover of Rs. 90,223, where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the assessment made by the assessing officer at the rate of 10 per cent, it preferred the abovesaid appeal C.T.A. No. 188 of 1982, and in the said appeal, the State filed the abovesaid enhancement petition in C.T.M.P. No. 296 of 1982, praying for restoration of the assessment originally made on the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 at 10 per cent rate, on the ground that the abovesaid turnover was not covered by valid C forms. While allowing the said appeal partly, the Tribunal also allowed the abovesaid enhancement petition, disagreeing with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and agreeing with the view of the original assessing authority and holding that the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31 were not supported by valid C forms. Aggrieved by the restoration of the original assessment relating to the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 1,45,680.31, the present revision has been filed by the assessee. The reasoning of the assessing authority in holding that the abovesaid C forms were invalid, is as follows : (a) According to the abovesaid section 8(4)(a) read with the abovesaid rule 12, form C declaration should be valid and signed by the purchasing dealers and it should contain all the prescribed particulars. But the assessee himself has stated in its letter dated December 29, 1980, that the C forms were received in advance before supplies were effected, that the C forms were issued on the basis of the order placed and that, to correlate the C forms and invoices, the assessee has given invoice numbers in the C forms. This proved that the particulars concerning invoice numbers and dates and sale price were not entered in the C forms by the purchasing dealers but only by the assessee, the selling dealers. This is contrary to the Rules, since rule 12(8) requires that the person signing the C form, viz., the purchasing dealer shall signify his status in the C forms and make a verification in the manner provided in such C forms. This is contrary to the Rules, since rule 12(8) requires that the person signing the C form, viz., the purchasing dealer shall signify his status in the C forms and make a verification in the manner provided in such C forms. It also proved that the purchasing dealers have not made the verification in the C forms as required by rule 12(8). One set of the particulars required to be furnished by the purchasing dealers in the C forms, is the bill number, date and the amount. The purchasing dealers have to certify in the C forms that the goods ordered for in their purchase order and purchased from the selling dealers as per the bill numbers, etc., are for resale, etc., and are covered by the Central sales tax registration certificate. The bill number and the amount can be noted by the purchasing dealers in the C forms only after the receipt of relevant sale bills, from the assessee - seller and these particulars cannot be filled up by purchasing dealers before receipt of sale bills of the assessee - seller. Admittedly, on the date of signing of the C forms by the purchasing dealers, no sale or purchase has taken place. Thus the C forms furnished in advance by the purchasing dealers, prior to raising of the sale bills by the assessee - seller and prior to the actual sales effected, are not the ones furnished in the manner prescribed in the abovesaid provisions. The purchasing dealers who signed the C forms have also not made the verification in the manner provided. These defects cannot be rectified by way of a subsequent certificate by the buyers, confirming the sale bills and amounts entered in the C forms already furnished. The omission to note the sale bill number and date and amount, etc., in the C forms can be rectified only by C forms furnished by purchasing dealers after the purchase has been effected. (b) In this connection, the assessing authority also relied on the decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) and State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC). In [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. (b) In this connection, the assessing authority also relied on the decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) and State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. [1966] 18 STC 222 (SC). In [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC) (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) it has been held that the dealer has to strictly comply with the provisions of law requiring him to furnish declaration in the prescribed forms and he cannot be allowed to produce other evidence to prove that the sales were to registered dealers. In [1966] 18 STC 222 (State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd.) the Supreme Court has observed that the concessional rate of tax under the abovesaid Act is available provided the selling dealer obtained from the buyer the declaration in the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the latter, containing all the particulars required to be filled up and that the goods are covered by the registration certificate issued under the said Act. (c) The assessing authority also observed in its order that in the notice dated February 28, 1981, from the assessing authority to the assessee, which was received by the assessee on March 3, 1981, the assessee was duly informed that fresh C forms only should be filed with reference to the abovesaid turnover of Rs. 2,14,153.44 for availing the concessional rate. But the assessee filed fresh C forms only in respect of the above referred to two sales, one for Rs. 57,750 and another for Rs. 10,723.13, out of the abovesaid entire turnover of Rs. 2,14,153.44. With reference to the other inter-State sales, the assessee instead of filing fresh C forms, has furnished certificates from the buyers, confirming the particulars of sale bill numbers, dates and amounts noted in the C forms already furnished by it. In view of the abovesaid Supreme Court decisions, the certificates cannot be accepted for allowing the concessional rate. As against this elaborate and considered reasoning of the assessing authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner only stated as follows : "..... the date of issue of C forms has got nothing to be concerned with the actual date of delivery of the goods and in the sale bills also the contract No. etc., was noted and therefore the C forms filed by the appellants for the turnover of Rs. the date of issue of C forms has got nothing to be concerned with the actual date of delivery of the goods and in the sale bills also the contract No. etc., was noted and therefore the C forms filed by the appellants for the turnover of Rs. 1,45,680 are found to be in order and the defect pointed out by the assessing officer is not a material defect to reject the C forms filed by them." The Tribunal in its order reiterated the reasoning given by the assessing authority. It also noted as follows : "The learned authorised representative has also not denied the fact that the C forms covering the disputed turnover had been issued by the buyers long before the date of sale. His only contention is that these C forms have been sent by the buyers soon after entering into the contract with the appellants for the purchase of the goods." The Tribunal also made emphasis on the expression used in section 8(4)(a), viz., "to whom the goods are sold". In that context, the Tribunal also relied on the decisions in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. S. R. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655 (SC) and Kuppuswami Mudaliar & Sons v. State of Madras [1974] 34 STC 6 (Mad.) as to when actually a sale takes place. Since admittedly the C forms covering the disputed turnover, had been issued by the buyers long before the date of sale, (that is, long before the date when title in the goods passed on to the buyers), the Tribunal held that the abovesaid C forms were not in accordance with the abovesaid provisions of law and that hence not valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner however argues that by virtue of the abovesaid certificates produced from the purchasing dealers, substantial compliance of the requirements of law is there and that hence the concessional rate of tax should be applied to the abovesaid disputed turnover. But, we are unable to agree with this contention in the light of the above extracted provisions of section 8(4)(a) of the Act and rule 12 of the abovesaid Rules and the above referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., [1965] 16 STC 607 (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) and [1966] 18 STC 222 (State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd.). Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) and [1966] 18 STC 222 (State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd.). That apart, as already noted, even a fresh opportunity was given to the assessee to furnish fresh C forms from the purchasing dealers, strictly conforming to the abovesaid provisions. But, even then the assessee did not furnish such C forms, but only furnished the above referred to certificates from the purchasing dealers. As already noted the Supreme Court has held in [1965] 16 STC 607 (Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) that the dealer has to strictly comply with the provisions of law, requiring him to furnish the declaration in the prescribed forms and that he cannot be allowed to produce other evidence to prove that the sales were at concessional rate. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gajanan Bidi Leaves Co. [1986] 62 STC 203 also, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by J. S. Verma, Acting Chief Justice, as he then was, has held that the only manner or procedure in which the selling dealer can claim the benefit of concessional rate of tax, in case the declaration in form C is lost, is by production of a duplicate copy of the form along with the prescribed declaration mentioned in rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and that that rule does not permit the benefit being given on production of counterfoil retained by the purchasing dealer or the photostat copy of the same. The following observation of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also emphatically brings out the point : "In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 607 (SC), State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal and Co. [1967] 20 STC 374 (SC) and the subsequent decisions following that view, it is settled that in order to claim the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, the dealer must furnish a declaration in the prescribed form C in the prescribed manner. Unless that is done, the benefit of the concessional rate claimed by the dealer cannot be given." Therefore, there is no merit in this revision and hence the revision petition shall stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.