Entitlement to statutory form cannot be denied due to administrative technicalities when all conditions are met.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 8 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'CST Act') has been filed to challenge the order dated 05th July, 2019 passed by the respondent denying the issue of prescribed statutory Form "C" to the petitioner in respect of purchases made in the Financial Year 2016-2017.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the CST Act, had purchased goods in the course of interstate transactions against "C" Forms. By virtue of Section 8(4) of the CST Act, the respondent is obliged to issue Form "C" in respect of the purchases made on the strength of his Registration Certificate under CST Act. The petitioner was duly assessed for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and the Interstate purchases against Form "C" were accepted by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner applied for issuance of Form "C" on 21st June, 2019 in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17 of Rs.2,24,14,584/- for third quarter and Rs.1,87,17,945/- for fourth quarter in accordance with all the conditions prescribed in CST (Delhi) Forms Rule 4(1)(A), 1957. The Assessing Authority vide impugned order dated 05th July, 2019 observed that the facts stated in the application for issuance of Form "C" were true but rejected the issuance of Form "C" for the reason that the system did not permit downloading of "C" Form.

3. The impugned order dated 10th October, 2018 of the Assessing Authority has been challenged on the ground that since the Interstate purchases were reflected in the petitioner's Books of Accounts and Balance Sheet and had been accepted for the Assessment Year, there was no reason to deny issuance of "C" Form. The reasons given for rejecting the application are erroneous. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Department of Trade & Taxes, (2016) 89 VST 312, wherein similar facts were involved, and it was held that the Authority was not justified in declining issue of Form "C" to the petitioner and directed issuance of Form "C" pertaining to interstate purchase transactions within three months.

4. The petitioner has thus, prayed for issue of writ of Mandamus or appropriate directions to the respondent to issue requisite number of Form "C" in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17 and correct their system for release of "C" Form.

5. The respondent in its short counter affidavit has explained that the statutory Form "C" could not be issued as the details of purchases were not entered in prescribed Col.R-11.1 which provides for filling details of interstate trade and exports-imports against Form "C" in the returns filed with the Department. The interstate purchases against Form "C" were reflected as High Seas purchases in 3rd and 4th quarter in the returns filed for the year 2016-17. By virtue of Section 28 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (herein after referred to as `DVAT Act') if any dealer or person discovers a discrepancy in a Return furnished by him under Section 26 of the DVAT Act, then such discrepancy has to be removed by filing a revised return within a period of one year following the year of such tax period. Once, the period of one year expires, the dealer cannot be allowed to rectify discrepancy by filing revised return as no such process exists under DVAT Act. The provisions of DVAT Act are extended to CST Act by virtue of sub Section 2 of Section 9 of CST Act.

6. It is further submitted by the respondent that Rule 54 of Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, 2005 on which relianc