RANGANATHAN, J.

Though the statement of case furnished by the Sales Tax Tribunal is very lengthy, the facts necessary for the decision of this case and the question which arises are within a very short compass.

The matter relates to the sales tax assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act of M/s. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "selling dealer"). The selling dealer sold 12 trucks to M/s. Tosh Metal and Alloy Industries (P.) Ltd., Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the "purchasing dealer"). The total sale price was Rs. 3,59.497.38 and these sales have been assessed at the rate of 10 per cent, rejecting the claim of the selling dealer that he was entitled to the concessional rate of tax provided in section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The ground on which the assessee's claim was rejected was that the relevant C forms issued by the purchasing dealer had not been produced. Though originally the controversy between the parties related to the 12 transactions, it has now transpired that so far as 4 transactions are concerned the assessee was not able to show that any C forms had at all been issued by the purchasing dealer and these transactions are no longer in issue before us. But in respect of the remaining 8 transactions details of which have been given on page 2 of the order of the Additional District Judge (who disposed of the revision petition against which this reference has been made), the position is somewhat different and we are concerned only with these 8 transactions, the total sale proceeds in respect of which comes to Rs. 2,41,555.68.

These 8 transactions are said to have taken place on 10th June, 1968, 26th June, 1968, and 28th August, 1968. By the time the assessment was made and the further proceedings took place the purchasing company had gone into liquidation. But the assessee was able to ascertain from the liquidator of the said company the information that the records of the company pertaining to the Karnal branch indicated purchases from the assessee-company and that eight sales tax C forms dated 12th February, 1969 (and not 14th February, 1969, as mentioned in the letter to the official liquidator), had been issued by the purchasing company against the relevant bills of the petitioner-company, Thereupon the assessee made a petition to the High Court of Calcutta for directions to the official liquidator to issue duplicates of these C forms which according to the petitioner-company had not been received by it. On 21th March, 1974, the company Judge of the Calcutta High Court passed an order directing that the assessee-company may be allowed to take photostat copies at its own cost of the counterfoils of the 8 sales tax declaration forms available in the purchasing company's records. In pursuance of this order the petitioner-company obtained these photostat copies of the counterfoils of C form declarations dated 12th February, 1969. The learned Additional District Judge has accepted the furnishing of these photostat copies as sufficient compliance with rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules and as entitling the petitioner-company to the concessional rate of tax in respect of the above eight sales to the purchasing dealer. However, the learned Additional District Judge also directed by way of abundant caution that the petitioner-company should furnish an indemnity bond to the Sales Tax Officer indemnifying the Government against any loss of revenue by the user of the said C form declarations which had been lost to the extent of the loss of revenue occasioned to the department by the loss of the originals, if any.

It is at the request of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that the following question has been referred to us for decision under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional District Judge was justified in directing the notified authority to accept the photostat co