The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether in view of section 3-G of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now the Trade Tax Act), as it stood prior to 1983, the rule-making authority could prescribe the limitation for filing form III-D. 2. Section 3-G (1) at the relevant time was as follows : " (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3-A or section 3-D, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Gazette, the tax on the turnover to be determined in the prescribed manner of sale of goods to a department of the Central Government, or of a State Government, or to a company, corporation or undertaking (not being a Nagar Mahapalika, Municipal Board, Zila Parishad, Town Area Committee, Notified Area Committee, Cantonment Board or a University or any institution managed for the time being by an Authorised Controller) owned or controlled by the Central Government or by a State Government shall, if the dealer furnishes to the assessing authority such declaration, obtained from such department, company, corporation or undertaking in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, be levied and paid at the rate for the time being specified in sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, unless the goods are taxable under any other section of this Act, at a rate lower than the said rate. " Rule 12-C (2), framed under the Sales Tax Act was as under at the relevant time : " (2) A dealer who claims to have sold any goods to any department of the Central Government or of a State Government or to a company, corporation or undertaking owned or controlled by the Central Government or by a State Government for any purpose other than that referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-G shall obtain a declaration referred to in sub-rule (1) and shall submit the same to the assessing authority in the manner and within the time specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A. " 3. Sub-rule (2) of rule 12-A, in so far as material, provides that the original portion of all such certificates shall be furnished by the selling dealer to the assessing authority up to the first date on which he is required to furnish his accounts for final assessment in respect of the assessment year to which the claim relates. 4. From rule 12-A, sub-rule (2), it is clear that the selling dealer was required to furnish form III-D up to the first date on which he was required to furnish his accounts for final assessment in respect of the assessment year to which the claim relates. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 3-G, as it stood at the relevant time, the tax could be imposed at a concessional rate if the dealer furnished to the assessing authority such declaration obtained from such department in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. He submits that the language employed in section 3-G at the relevant time did not entitle the rule-making authority to prescribe a time-limit to furnish form III-D and that being so, sub-rule (2) of rule 12-C is ultra vines of section 3-G to the extent the former prescribes a time-limit to file form III-D. 6. In this case the assessing authority had issued a notice fixing November 28, 1978 calling upon the assessee to appear in connection with the assessment proceedings. The case was then adjourned to December 19, 1978, when the assessee claims to have filed 305 forms. The case was thereafter adjourned to January 10, 1979, when it is said that the assessee filed 12 forms. 483 forms are said to have been filed on January 19, 1980. All these forms were rejected by the assessing authority saying that they had been filed beyond the time as prescribed under rule 12-C (2), that is, after the first date, when the assessee was required to appear before the assessing authority. 7. 483 forms are said to have been filed on January 19, 1980. All these forms were rejected by the assessing authority saying that they had been filed beyond the time as prescribed under rule 12-C (2), that is, after the first date, when the assessee was required to appear before the assessing authority. 7. The question for consideration is as to whether the words "in such manner" occurring in section 3-G, can be so construed as to entitle the rule-making authority to prescribe a time-limit for filing form III-D. Shri Bharat Ji, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the words "in such manner" occurring in section 3-G, are not of wide amplitude and they are confined only to the particulars to be furnished in form III-D and that conferment of power on the rule-making authority to lay down a time-limit for filing form III-D, cannot be read into section 3-G. 8. The question for consideration is as to what is the true interpretation of the phrase "in such manner", occurring in section 3-G. 9. In Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v. K. I. Abraham [1967] 20 STC 367; AIR 1967 SC 1823 , the Supreme Court while interpreting the phrase "in the prescribed manner" occurring in section 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) observed as under : " The phrase in the prescribed manner occurring in section 8 (4) of the Act only confers power on the rule-making authority to prescribe a rule stating what particulars are to be mentioned in the prescribed form, the nature and value of the goods sold, the parties to whom they are sold, and to which authority the form is to be furnished. But it does not authorise the rule-making authority to prescribe a time-limit within which the declaration is to be filed by the registered dealer. " 10. Following the aforesaid authority, we accept the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that the phrase "in such manner" occurring in section 3-G, simply denotes the mode in which an act was to be done. If any time-limit has to be prescribed for doing of the act, we are of the view that specific words such as "the time within which" were also necessary to be put in the statute. 11. If any time-limit has to be prescribed for doing of the act, we are of the view that specific words such as "the time within which" were also necessary to be put in the statute. 11. For the reasons, we hold that rule 12-C (2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (now, "the Trade Tax Rules") is ultra vines section 3-G, as it stood at the relevant time, in so far as it prescribes a time-limit to file form III-D. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that an appeal was filed against the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 1976-77, which has been decided. 13. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The appellate authority is directed to consider form III-D filed before the assessing authority by the petitioner on various dates without rejecting them on the ground of limitation and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Petition allowed. .