TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Turnover) Rules, 1957 and insist the petitioners to furnish the duplicate C-Forms, as prescribed under the above said Rule. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed the duplicate C-Forms, when they made their representation in pursuant to the orders of assessment passed against them. Therefore, the respondents ought to 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 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 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the orders dated 30.06.2011 and 28.06.2011. However, the respondent has chosen to reject the rectification petitions only on the reason that the original C-Forms were not filed by the petitioners. Hence, these present writ petitions. 4. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the respondent, wherein, it is admitted that the petitioner in each case has filed the original C-Forms to the then Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and that the same was acknowledged in the dealer local delivery note. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the said Officer had left the file without passing the assessment orders and the original Form-C marked portion submitted by the dealers were misplaced and not traceable in records. It is furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paying CST at the rate of 3% on condition that they should furnish C-Forms issued by the other end dealers. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners, along with their returns, furnished those C-Forms in original, since in the counter affidavits, the said fact is admitted. However, those original C-Forms were misplaced by the office of the respondent and are not traceable till today. When such being the admitted position of fact, the respondent is not entitled to harp upon Rule 12(3) of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and insist the petitioners to furnish the duplicate C-Forms, as prescribed under the above said Rule. One can understand that when those C-Forms are lost at the hands of the petitioners and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he indemnity bond, cannot be accepted, as the same would be applicable only in case the petitioner had lost the original C Form. The respondent in this case shall accept the duplicate copy of the C Form already filed before them by the petitioner. When the said document filed by the petitioner before the respondent-authority had been misplaced by the respondent-Department, insisting of Declaration by means of indemnity bond, is not correct and there is no duty cast upon the petitioner to file the indemnity bond, when the petitioner has not lost the original of the same and when the petitioner has also not requested by stating that they have misplaced the original document. Admittedly, both the parties admit that the receipt will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
