Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. Two declaration forms were supplied by Diana Distributors covered by question No. 10. One of them was rejected on the ground that the declaration form was dated 13th January, 1954, but covered transaction up to 30th January, 1954. This ground, in our opinion, is a valid ground for disbelieving the genuineness of the declaration. The other form was rejected on the ground that there were two signatures, one in front and other on the back of the declaration form, which did not tally, and neither of them was dated. We have already expressed the view, on the authority of the decision of this Court in Durga Sree Stores [1964] 15 S.T.C. 186 that the non-dating of signature is of little consequence. We, however,' find fault with the Board that it acted like a handwriting expert and on mere suspicion came to the conclusion that the two signatures were not by one and the same person. This is all the more so because the Board compared an initial with a signature and came to the conclusion that they differed. In our opinion, there was little evidence to come to the conclusion that both the signatures were not made by the same person. In the view that we take, we answer question No. 10 in the affirmative in so far as the declaration form dated 13th January, 1954, is concerned and in the negative in so far as the other declaration form is concerned.