PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR, J.

This is an appeal by the State of Madras represented by the District Collector, Madurai, the defendant in O.S. No. 108 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, against the judgment and decree therein.

The facts are briefly these : That was a suit filed by the Madura Knitting Company Ltd., respondent in this appeal, for a declaration that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 30th March, 1951, sustained by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Board of Revenue, Madras, cancelling a rebate to the extent of over 22 lakhs granted originally by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 6th December, 1949, in the turnover of the respondent company regarding their export of hosiery goods outside the State was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and for an injunction restraining the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai Town III, from enforcing the order for the collection of Rs. 17, 204-11-3 issued in pursuance of the cancelled rebate which was also attacked as passed without jurisdiction, and for costs. Under rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, which applies to this case, every person claiming a rebate under section 7 shall submit to the assessing authority an application in Form 8 within three months of the delivery of the articles outside the Province, and rule 10 says that on receipt of the application the assessing authority shall, after satisfying himself that the application is in order, and that the rebate is admissible, send to the applicant a refund order for the amount of the rebate due, if the tax has already been paid, or if the assessment had been provisionally made under rule 7 or 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, adjust the amount at the time of the final assessment under rule 11. The respondent in this case submitted an application under rule 9 in time only for the months of February and March, 1949. But it claimed a rebate on a turnover of more than 24 lakhs for the entire year 1948-49. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer pointed to it that there was no application in Form 8 asking for rebate for the other ten months. Thereupon, the respondent seems to have told him that such applications had been sent in time, and would appear to have been missent or delivered to some other officer, or mislaid somewhere, as those applications were not traceable in the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Then the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took a statement, Ex. A-1, to that effect from the respondent's manager, Sundararajier, on 24th November, 1949. The respondent applied for rebate for those ten months also producing copies of alleged Form 8 originals sent to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Without calling for any further proofs, like the despatch register, stamp register, etc., and without even observing that he believe that the originals had been sent in time and that he was accepting the copies as the originals were missent or mislaid, the then Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mr. Jagannatha Aiyangar, simply allowed the rebate on the turnover of Rs. 24, 60, 346, as claimed on 6th December, 1949.The then Commercial Tax Officer, Mr. K. Natesa Aiyar, the immediate superior officer of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, inspected the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, and found copies of Form 8 applications for rebate instead of the originals, as were required under the law and the rules so that the details in the applications regarding the export outside the Province, the date of the applications, the date of export etc., may be verified. He also saw that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had not recorded any reasons for admitting the copies instead of the originals. So in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 12(2) of the General Sales Tax Act, of calling for and examining the records for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as