C-Form typographical defects were not enough to deny concessional CST or revive the reassessment demand.

Minor typographical defects in a C-Form did not justify denial of concessional CST or reopening of the assessment where the form had already been accepted and concession granted on its basis. The only irregularities were an incorrect reference to the CST Rules year and imperfect legibility, which the HC treated as non-substantial and not affecting the validity of the declaration. As no material infirmity was shown, the demand could not be restored and the challenge to the order setting aside the reassessment demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defects pointed out in the C-Form were substantial so as to justify denial of concessional CST and reopening of the assessment.

Analysis: The C-Form was accepted initially and concessional CST was granted on its strength. The only defects noticed were a mention of the Rules as the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1975 instead of 1957, and that the writing was not perfectly legible. These were treated as mere typographical and non-substantial defects. No material infirmity affecting the validity of the form was shown, and the purchaser had supplied the form on which the concession was originally availed.

Conclusion: The defects in the C-Form did not justify denial of concessional tax or restoration of the reassessment demand, and the challenge to the order setting aside the demand failed.

---