ORDER :

T.R. RAVI, J.

The revision petitioner is a dealer in rubber. While completing the assessment under Central Sales Tax for the year 2005-06, the Assessment Officer declined to accept C Forms submitted by the revision petitioner, relating to interstate sale worth Rs.3,10,71,460/-. The reason for rejecting the C Forms was that the same were not in accordance with the second proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 as amended.

2. The revision petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was allowed as per order dated 01.11.2013. The Appellate Authority relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Cipla Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Corporate Division and others reported in [(2013) 16 VST 445] wherein, the court interpreting the provisions of Rule 12(5) and requirement of F Form, held that F Form can cover transactions of more than one month, since the word used in Rule 12(5) is 'may' and not 'shall'. The Appellate Authority proceeded to adopt the same reasoning to hold that in Rule 12(1) also the word used is “may” and hence the provision should be treated as directory. The Appella