https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153923 The court held that D forms mentioning "Bombay" instead of "Delhi" were not defective as they pertained to the same seller, and the forms should not have been rejected. The refusal of appellate/revisional authorities to consider corrected D forms was deemed unjustified. The petitioner-company was entitled to claim a concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. The court awarded costs to the petitioner, including counsel's fee of Rs. 550. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:21:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153923 The court held that D forms mentioning "Bombay" instead of "Delhi" were not defective as they pertained to the same seller, and the forms should not have been rejected. The refusal of appellate/revisional authorities to consider corrected D forms was deemed unjustified. The petitioner-company was entitled to claim a concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. The court awarded costs to the petitioner, including counsel's fee of Rs. 550. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153923