Retrospective cancellation of C-forms cannot defeat concessional tax benefit where supplies are undisputed and no lawful denial exists.

Retrospective cancellation of C-forms could not defeat the petitioner's entitlement to concessional tax treatment where the underlying supplies were not disputed and no lawful basis was shown to deny the uncancelled forms. The Delhi High Court noted that four forms had been cancelled retrospectively and nine had never been cancelled, and a prior binding decision had already held that retrospective cancellation of C-forms is impermissible. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the benefit of all 13 C-forms, while the request to initiate contempt action was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the benefit of C-forms, including forms cancelled retrospectively and forms that were never cancelled, and whether denial of such benefit by the tax authorities was justified.

Analysis: The dispute concerned sales made in 2015-16 against C-forms for concessional tax treatment. Four of the thirteen forms had been cancelled retrospectively, while the remaining nine had not been cancelled at all. A prior binding decision had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively, and the authorities had not shown any lawful basis to deny the benefit of the uncancelled forms. The record also did not disclose any allegation that the petitioner had failed to supply the goods in question.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of all 13 C-forms, and the denial of such benefit was not justified.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on the question of entitlement to the C-form benefit, while the request to initiate contempt action was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Retrospective cancellation of C-forms cannot defeat the substantive tax benefit where the underlying supplies are not disputed and no lawful ground exists to deny the forms' validity.

---