JUDGMENT G. C. BHARUKA, J. - In this case the Tribunal has sent a statement of case pursuant to the order passed by this Court under section 33(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" only). After hearing the parties, in order to resolve the true legal issue as emerging from the order of the Tribunal, we have reframed the question, which is as follows : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was liable to pay special tax on the sales of fertilizers which it has purchased from M/s. Chemical India, Patna, on account of non-production of declaration in form IX-C and whether the requirement of production of declaration in form IX-C is mandatory for grant of exemption ?" The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. During the period 1974-75, it had purchased certain stocks of fertilizer on different dates from another registered dealer M/s. India Chemical of Boring, Canal Road, Patna and the sale price of the said stock in the hands of the assessee was Rs. 1,14,342.94. It is a matter of record that the selling dealer had recovered special sales tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the sale of the said stock of fertilizer from the assessee as was evident from the sale memos, which had been produced in course of the assessment proceedings. But since the petitioner had failed to produce declaration in form IX-C as prescribed under the Act, the said stock of fertilizer has been subjected to special tax twice over. The claim of the assessee for allowing deduction on the turnover of the stock of fertilizer has been rejected merely on the ground that production of declaration form IX-C is a mandatory prerequisite for entertainment of such a claim. The claim of the assessee for allowing deduction on the turnover of the stock of fertilizer has been rejected merely on the ground that production of declaration form IX-C is a mandatory prerequisite for entertainment of such a claim. The question at hand, after due deliberations, has been answered by us in favour of the assessee in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Taxation case No. 1 of 1981) disposed of today ([1999] 116 STC 173 (Pat.) supra), wherein it has been held that requirement of production of form IX-C is merely directory and if from other evidences forming part of the records, it is ascertained that the dealer is a second or subsequent seller then the transaction in his stock of the said goods cannot be subjected to special tax twice. For the reasons aforesaid, the question at hand is answered in negative, i.e., against the department. No cost. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, for needful. AFTAB ALAM, J. - I agree. Reference answered in the negative.