9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated March 30, 1992 by which the Commercial Tax Officer refused to give benefit of the C forms to the assessee on the following grounds: (a) Date of registration is not mentioned in the form. (b) Levelling charges of bottom plate have been included in the form. (c) Form amount and statement amount differ. (d) Purchase order was dated September 1, 1987 whereas invoices are dated April 29, 1987. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the omission to fill in the date of the registration certificate did not make the purchasing dealer unidentifiable. The omission was, therefore, not vital or substantial. As such the declaration should not have been rejected and the amount of sale covered thereby should not have been added back to the taxable turnover." 4.. On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the learned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had any objection he could have given credit to the extent of Rs. 79,705. But he could not have refused to give credit for the form altogether. This submission, in my view, made by the learned advocate is acceptable and correct. 6.. The objection (c) noted above goes to show that the relief was refused to the petitioner on the ground that the form amount and the Statement amount differed. He s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected and that have to be returned to the selling dealer for rectification. For this proposition she relied on [1970] 26 STC 480 (Orissa) [State of Orissa v. Orissa Polish Works]. 8.. This Court is of the view that this judgment has no application because it is not a case where the forms are wrong. The question is whether the petitioner could be denied relief for the amount for which he has prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
