https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158757 Section 15(2) of the RST Act did not require the Commissioner personally to file the revision; it was enough that the Commissioner could direct a Commercial Taxes Officer to apply, so maintainability was upheld. A marginally delayed revision was also treated as effectively condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, so it was not rejected as time-barred. On the merits, a notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could not override the statutory declaration requirement under section 8(4); furnishing the prescribed 'C' forms remained mandatory for the concessional rate, and the contrary view was rejected. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158757 Section 15(2) of the RST Act did not require the Commissioner personally to file the revision; it was enough that the Commissioner could direct a Commercial Taxes Officer to apply, so maintainability was upheld. A marginally delayed revision was also treated as effectively condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act, so it was not rejected as time-barred. On the merits, a notification under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act could not override the statutory declaration requirement under section 8(4); furnishing the prescribed 'C' forms remained mandatory for the concessional rate, and the contrary view was rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158757