2025 (10) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned order dated 02.02.2018, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, all these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts are taken from WA-79-2021 as lead case. 2. These batch of writ appeals are directed against a common impugned order dated 02.02.2018, passed in WPT-25-2016, WPT-26-2016 & WPT-27-2016 by the learned Single Bench of this Court, by which, the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein has been allowed and order dt. 12.08.2013, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, affirmed vide order dt. 30.08.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t-Firm were held to be defective and, ultimately, by order dt. 25.03.2013, the appellant-Authorities herein observed that the respondent-Firm has paid CST @ 2% i.e. Rs. 1,56,619/-, however, due to defective C-Forms, now CST was ascertained to be payable at full rate of 10% and, as such, total CST amounting to Rs. 7,83,097/- was demanded to be payable by the respondent-Firm. Against which, the respondent-Firm filed its representation and, in turn, fresh demand was made vide order dt. 12.08.2013, demanding a differential sum of Rs. 6,26,478/- from the respondent-Firm. Thereafter, on 14.11.2013, the respondent-Firm filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur and, vide order 30.08.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, rej....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not responsible. As such, the orders passed by the two authorities has rightly been set aside. Thus, all the appeals are liable to be rejected. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is not in dispute that C-Form was supplied to the respondent-Firm by the purchasing dealer and, on the strength of said C-Form, the appellant-Authorities has availed the concessional rate of tax in respect of CST @ 2% instead of 10% vide order 22.01.2008 firstly. However, later on, on the basis of audit objection, as revealed, the assessment of the respondent-Firm was reopened vide order dt. 25.03.2013 and, on account of defectiv....