Court sets aside CST levy challenge, citing natural justice violation. Respondent ordered to return defective forms.

The court set aside the revision order challenging the levy of CST without returning defective H-Forms, citing violations of natural justice principles. Respondent directed to return forms for rectification within three weeks, emphasizing the importance of allowing the petitioner to cure defects before passing revision orders. Failure to adhere to principles of natural justice led to the court allowing the Writ Petition and closing related proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Revision order challenged for levying CST without returning defective H-Forms.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to rectify defects in forms.
3. Observance of principles of natural justice in passing the revision order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a revision order where CST was levied without returning defective H-Forms as requested. The petitioner cited a judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and argued that the forms should have been returned to rectify defects before the revision assessment order was passed. The prime ground for filing the Writ Petition was the failure to return the H-Forms to enable the petitioner to cure the defects before the revision assessment order was made.

2. The petitioner's objections highlighted that all necessary forms and documents were submitted, and specific defects were not pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner invoked the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and argued that the rejection of forms without providing an opportunity to rectify defects violated principles of natural justice. The court noted that failure to return defective forms for rectification goes against principles of natural justice, as established in previous judgments, including one from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

3. The central issue in the Writ Petition was whether respondent No. 1 adhered to the principles of natural justice in issuing the revision order. The court found that the respondent did not follow the law established by previous court decisions and set aside the revision order. It directed respondent No. 1 to return the defective H-Forms to the petitioner for rectification within three weeks. Once rectified, the petitioner could resubmit the forms, and a fresh revision order would be passed. The court held that the failure to allow the petitioner to rectify defects violated principles of natural justice, leading to the allowance of the Writ Petition and closure of related proceedings.

---