2023 (2) TMI 589

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he benefit of the C-Forms in question cannot be denied to the petitioner, by cancelling the same retrospectively. Petition allowed.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam Suri, Ms. Arshya Singh, Advs. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: "a) issue a writ of declaration or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof declaring that the C Forms issued, (Annexure P-2) under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 by the Dealers registered with the Responden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, a notice under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act (being Ref no.: 10486004) was issued to the purchasing dealer on 12.04.2018 directing it to produce financial records pertaining to the period on or before 19.04.2018. However, no response was received from the purchasing dealer to the notice dated 12.04.2018. The purchasing dealer did not furnish any document to verify the purchases made by it. Consequently, cancellation proceedings of the C-forms were initiated against the purchasing dealer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the website of respondent no.1 reflects that the purchasing dealer is registered with the respondents since 08.08.2012 and submits that there is no provision under the CST Act for cancellation of d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions involving the similar issue by following the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). 11. This Court is informed that the respondents did not appeal against the decision in Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra). However, the respondents have preferred Special Leave Petitions (SLP) against some of the decisions that were rendered following Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr. (supra); the lead matter being the SLP arising from the decision in M/s Jai Gopal International Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X