9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave raised a common issue in these writ petitions while challenging the impugned orders of rejection. 3. The case of the petitioners in short is as follows: In respect of the assessment year 2007-2008, the petitioners sold the goods to the registered dealers in other States by way of inter-state sales, by paying CST at the rate of 3% on condition that the C-Forms issued in terms of Section 8(3) of the CST Act, 1956 are to be submitted to the Assessing Authority. The petitioners had submitted all the original C-Forms to the Assessing Authority on 14.02.2008. However, the respondent by orders dated 30.06.2011 & 28.06.2011, confirmed the notices of proposal on the ground that the original C-Forms have not been submitted. The petitioners hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be found fault with and consequently, duplicate C-Forms furnished by the petitioner should be taken into account and appropriate orders should be passed. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied on an order passed by this Court in WP Nos.3110 to 3112 of 2015 dated 09.02.2015, wherein under similar circumstances, this Court has permitted the Assessee therein to file duplicate copy of the C-Forms before the Assessing Officer, who in turn, was directed to decide the issue afresh, by accepting the said duplicate copy of the C-Forms. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent contended that furnishing of C-Forms should be only in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the duplicate C-Forms and pass appropriate orders, based on such C-Forms, as though the petitioners have complied with in furnishing the C-Forms in respect of their inter-state Sales. The very same issue was considered by this Court in the above decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, at Paragraph No.7, it has been observed as follows: "7. From a reading of the above extracted Rule 10(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to file Form of Declaration/Certificate relating to the year at any time before the final assessment of the accounts of that year. In this case, the petitioner has filed 'C' Form in original before the authority of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner." 9. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in both these writ petitions. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh orders on the rectification petitions, by considering the duplicate C-Forms already filed by the petitioners. Such exercise shall be done by the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing the said order, the respondent shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
