C forms remain mandatory for concessional CST rate despite a section 8(5) notification reducing tax further.

Section 15(2) of the RST Act did not require the Commissioner personally to file the revision; it was enough that the Commissioner could direct a Commercial Taxes Officer to apply, so maintainability was upheld. A marginally delayed revision was also treated as effectively condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, so it was not rejected as time-barred. On the merits, a notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could not override the statutory declaration requirement under section 8(4); furnishing the prescribed 'C' forms remained mandatory for the concessional rate, and the contrary view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision applications were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner officer under section 15(2) of the RST Act; (ii) whether the revision filed beyond limitation was liable to be rejected; and (iii) whether furnishing of 'C' forms was mandatory for availing the concessional rate under the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): whether the revision applications were maintainable at the instance of the petitioner officer under section 15(2) of the RST Act.

Analysis: Section 15(2) empowers the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to direct a Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply for revision against an order of the Board. The provision does not require the Commissioner himself to file the revision petition. The objection, therefore, could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revision applications were maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the revision filed beyond limitation was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The revision was only marginally delayed and an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed. The delay stood effectively condoned, and the matter involved a substantial question of law where adjudication on merits was to be preferred over rejection on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The revision was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether furnishing of 'C' forms was mandatory for availing the concessional rate under the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 requires the prescribed declaration to be furnished for availing the concessional rate under section 8(1), and section 8(5) notifications operate as a further reduction of that already concessional rate. Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 prescribes forms 'C' and 'D'. The Supreme Court authority relied upon held that the notification is not self-contained and cannot dispense with the statutory requirement of declaration forms.

Conclusion: Furnishing of 'C' forms was mandatory, and the contrary view was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The departmental revisions succeeded, the orders of the appellate authorities were set aside, and the matter was left open only to the limited extent of verification of the disputed forms by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 granting a reduced inter-State tax rate cannot be read as dispensing with the declaration requirement under section 8(4); the concessional benefit remains conditional upon furnishing the prescribed forms.

---