JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna J. - Challenging the legality and validity of the Tribunal's order dated February 7, 2000, the present revision is at the instance of the Department. The Tribunal by the order under revision passed in Second Appeal No. 80 of 1998 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95 (U.P.) allowed the appeal in part filed before it by the dealer - opposite party and remanded the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to examine form IIIB Nos. 175965 and 034704 and counterfoil of form No. 87566. It has been further provided that on verification of all these forms their benefits should be extended to the dealer - opposite party. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, is aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal to a limited extent. The submission is that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the counterfoil of form IIIB (form No. 87566). With regard to the rest, no grievance was raised by the learned Standing Counsel during the course of the hearing. In the memo of the revision the following three questions of law sought to have been raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to direct the assessing authority to accept the counterfoil of form III-B and to allow the exemption on that basis ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal for accepting the counterfoil of the form III-B is correct in the eyes of law and in the light of the judgment of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Automobiles P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi [1997] 104 STC 75; [1997] UPTC 225. (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is legally correct in view of the provisions of section 4B and rule 25B(15) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules ?" The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that in the absence of original copy of form IIIB bearing No. 87566, no benefit on the basis of the counterfoil of form IIIB can be validly extended to a dealer. In this connection strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of the apex court in India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [2005] 139 STC 329; [2005] UPTC 380. In this connection strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of the apex court in India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore [2005] 139 STC 329; [2005] UPTC 380. The learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party on the other hand supports the order of the Tribunal. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sub-rule (1) of rule 25B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, provides that where a dealer holding a recognition certificate purchases any goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4B, for use as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of any notified goods, he shall, if he wishes to avail of the concession referred to therein, furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in form IIIB. Sub-rule (15) of the said rule provides that when a duly completed declaration form, issued by the purchasing dealer to the selling dealer is lost in transit or by the selling dealer, the purchasing dealer shall, on demand from the selling dealer issue a duplicate declaration form to such selling dealer. The duplicate form shall be issued to the selling dealer in the same manner as the certificate originally issued. The dealer - opposite party in the case on hand has made no attempt to obtain a duplicate declaration form as provided for under sub-rule (15) of rule 25B of the Rules. A learned single judge of this court in Badri Narain & Sons, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1995] UPTC 100 has taken the view that the necessity of obtaining a duplicate in terms of sub-rule (21) of rule 12A would arise only when the declarations titled as "original" and "duplicate" in form IIIA both are lost. The judgment proceeds on the basis with the reference to form IIIA. The crux of the judgment is that the said form IIIA is executed in triplicate and therefore, each part thereof titled as "original", "duplicate" and "counterfoil" is original. The said judgment of the learned single judge is to be read subject to the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court. The crux of the judgment is that the said form IIIA is executed in triplicate and therefore, each part thereof titled as "original", "duplicate" and "counterfoil" is original. The said judgment of the learned single judge is to be read subject to the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court. The apex court in the case of India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore [2005] 139 STC 329; [2005] UPTC 380, a case under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in respect of form C where the original was lost and its counterfoil was produced, held that the filing of duplicate of form C cannot be accepted. It refused to extend the benefit of concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-State sales on the basis of the counterfoil copy of form C. From the report it would be clear that a similar argument as was raised before this court in the case of Badri Narain & Sons [1995] UPTC 100 that "all the portions of the form are original" was pressed into service before the apex court in the above noted decision, but was not approved. It was taken into consideration its earlier pronouncement as well of different High Courts wherein it was held that production of a duplicate form is a condition precedent for the availability of the concession. Sub-rule (5) of rule 25B provides that a registered dealer who claims to have made sale to a dealer holding a recognition certificate shall, in respect of such claim, furnish to the assessing authority the portion marked "original" of the declaration form received by him from the purchasing dealer, up to the time prescribed in sub-rule (7) of rule 41. Thus, the filing of the portion marked "original" of the declaration form is the requirement of law. Interpreting the corresponding Rules as framed under the Central Sale Tax Act, the apex court in the case of India Agencies (Regd.) [2005] 139 STC 329; [2005] UPTC 380 has held that the said provision should be followed strictly. The very purpose of prescribing the form is that there should not be suppression of any sales by a selling dealer as well as evasion of taxes payable to the State. The apex court has further noticed that a liberal construction having regard to the scheme of the Central Sale Tax Act and the Rules in this regard is not justified. The apex court has further noticed that a liberal construction having regard to the scheme of the Central Sale Tax Act and the Rules in this regard is not justified. If there was any hardship, it was for the Legislature to take the appropriate action to make suitable provisions in that regard. These observations do equally apply to the controversy involved in the present case. Apart from the above, as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, the Legislature have made a provision by enacting sub-rule (15) to soften the rigour of the provision by providing a mechanism for obtaining the duplicate form in case the same is lost in transit. No attempt was made by the dealer - opposite party to obtain a duplicate declaration form as provided for under the aforesaid rule. Viewed as above, this court is of the view that the Tribunal was not legally justified in directing the assessing authority to accept the counterfoil of form IIIB and to allow the exemption on that basis. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and it is held that the direction of the Tribunal with regard to form IIIB bearing No. 87566 is not justified. The said direction is therefore, set aside. No order as to costs.