2023 (4) TMI 759

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uarter of the Financial Year 2014-15. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said assessment order to the extent that respondent No. 3 has framed a default assessment on the basis that the C Forms relied upon by the petitioner, were subsequently cancelled by the Rajasthan Tax Authority. 3. Respondent No. 3 had reasoned that since C Forms had been cancelled by the Tax Authority that issued it, no benefit of such C Forms could be availed by the petitioner. 4. The only question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether respondent No. 3 is justified in denying the benefit of C Forms to the petitioner that were issued by the Rajasthan Tax Authorities at the instance of the selling dealer located in the said State. 5. Undis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was represented that the goods were intended to be used. If the purchasing dealer misapplies the goods he incurs a penalty under section 10. That penalty is incurred by the purchasing dealer and cannot be visited upon the selling dealer...." 9. In M/s Pentex Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi : ST. REF. 1/1998 decided on 06.05.2013, this Court, following the decision in the case of Radio Electrical Ltd. (supra), had held that once a selling dealer had complied with the requirement of verifying that the purchasing dealer is a registered dealer and holds the registration certificate in respect of goods sold to him, he had no further obligations and the benefit of the C Forms could not be denied. The only exception would....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. This Court, in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. : W.P.(C) 1358/2016, had held that cancellation of C Forms with retrospective effect is not permissible. 15. In the aforesaid view, the denial of the benefit of C Forms, on the ground that they have subsequently been cancelled, is not sustainable. 16. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the tax authorities in National Capital Territory of Delhi have no control over the dealer who has furnished the C Forms or the tax authorities (Rajasthan Tax Authorities) which have cancelled the C Forms. 17. A similar contention was advanced on behalf of the Revenue in the case of Surinder Pal and Sons-HUF v. Value Added Tax Officer (War....