H Form validity under quarterly declaration rules affirmed; revisional interference cannot stand where appellate view is permissible.

Rule 12(10)(b) applies the procedural requirements for C Forms mutatis mutandis to H Forms, and the quarterly declaration flexibility recognised for C Forms was treated as equally applicable to H Forms. On that basis, an H Form is not invalid merely because it covers transactions spanning more than one quarter of a financial year. Where the appellate authority adopts one permissible view of the rule, revisional jurisdiction cannot be used simply because another view is possible. The H Form was therefore treated as valid, the revisional order as unsustainable, and the appellate order as restored in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether an H Form covering transactions of more than one quarter of a financial year is invalid under Rule 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and whether the revisional authority could interfere with the appellate order on that ground.

Analysis: Rule 12(10)(b) applies the procedural requirements governing C Forms to H Forms mutatis mutandis. Rule 12(1) permits a single declaration to cover transactions of sale in a quarter, and the relaxation recognized in the circular dated 11.04.2014 in relation to C Forms was held to apply equally to H Forms. The Court held that the H Form could not be invalidated merely because it covered transactions of more than one quarter. Since the appellate authority had taken one of the possible views, the revisional authority could not invoke revisional jurisdiction merely because another view was possible.

Conclusion: The H Form was held to be valid and in conformity with Rule 12(10)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The revisional order was unsustainable and the appellate order was restored, in favour of the assessee.

---