ORDER 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Government of U.P. issued a notification dated 17-11-1975 under Section 5 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act allowing, w.e.f. 17-11-1975 and subject to the conditions specified therein, a rebate of 2% on the turnover liable to tax of a dealer in respect of cotton yarn sold by him to a person for use in the manufacture of cloth. Condition 2 in the notification reads : " (2) The dealer shall furnish a certificate in the following pro forma within three months of the expiry of the assessment year or up to the date of final hearing for assessment, whichever is earlier." The form in which the certificate has to be issued and enclosed is also prescribed in the notification. The pro forma reads thus : "Certificate This is to certify that cotton yarn for Rs .... was sold by me during the year/period ending 31-3-19... as per details maintained by me in a register, for use in the manufacture of cloth. Signature of selling dealer .... Name .... Address .... U.P. Registration Certification No. ... Effective from ..... By Order (Sawtantra Vir Singh) Jamila Dy. Secretary." 4. In this case, the respondent dealer did not file such a certificate within the time prescribed. On that ground assessing authority as well as first and second appellate authorities rejected his claim for benefit of the said notification. On revision, however, the High Court held that the said condition is merely directory and that there was ample evidence with the dealer to satisfy the authorities that the requirements to be stated in the certificate are in fact satisfied. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Tribunal to look into the material and decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made by it. 5. The contention of the Revenue-appellant is that the High Court was in error in holding that the said condition in the notification is directory. It is submitted that since it is a condition for the grant of concession it must be deemed to be mandatory. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in CST v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain (1988 Supp SCC 729 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 25 : 1988 Supp (1) SCR 583). The decision clearly and fully supports the Revenues case. It is submitted that since it is a condition for the grant of concession it must be deemed to be mandatory. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in CST v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain (1988 Supp SCC 729 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 25 : 1988 Supp (1) SCR 583). The decision clearly and fully supports the Revenues case. Following the said decision, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. No costs.