$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6144/2023 M/S FOREVER NEW APPARELS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: None.

versus COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdev and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs.

(9643400939).

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. None appears for the Petitioner. In fact, none has been appearing in the matter for the last few hearings.

3. The prayer in this petition, inter alia, is for setting aside of the order dated 29^th January, 2021 by which the Petitioner’s request for correction of the returns for the 1^st quarter of the Financial Year 2017-18 was rejected. In effect, the Petitioner’s prayer is for permission to revise the return for the said period.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that it had made a mistake in the Form 2A uploaded on the DVAT website for the subject returns and had sought permission to revise the same to enable the Petitioner to download the requisite ‘F’ Forms. The said request was rejected vide the impugned order.

5. The revision was sought to be made beyond the one year period, which was the basis on which the impugned order of rejection was passed by the Department after interpreting the relevant Rules under the DVAT Act.

6. TheCourthasconsideredthematter.Thequestionofrevisionofreturns stood decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 8272/2015 titled M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes & Anr. (2016:DHC:777-DB). The operative portion thereof, reads as under:

“15. The issue boils down to whether Rule 5(4)(i) of the CST Delhi Rules is attracted. In other words, can it be said that there was a failureonthepart of the Petitioner to furnish a return, including a reconciliation return or return in accordance with the provisions of law or in payment of tax due according to such return.

16.Aquestionwasrepeatedlyposedtolearned counsel for the Respondents whether there was any adverse impact as far as the Department was concerned if the C-Forms in respect of the aforementioned inter-state purchase transactions as requested by the Petitioner were to be furnished even at this stage. The reply was in the negative. In other words, there would be no loss of any tax revenue to the Department. At the same time, it is not denied that if the Petitioner is unable to obtain and furnish the C-Forms to its selling dealers, then it cannot take advantage of reduced rate of tax and the selling dealer is likely to pass on the burden of thedifferential tax to thePetitioner.In sum, thedenial of C-Forms to the Petitioner would certainly be prejudicial to it.

[...]

19. Turning to the facts of the present case it is not the stand of the Respondents that the inter-state purchase transactions in respect of which the C-Forms are being askedforby thePetitionerare notgenuine.Asfarasthe furnishing of bank statements is concerned, it is stated that the Petitioner has by a letter dated 10th July 2015 furnished the said documents. As regards the apprehension expressed by Mr. Ghose that this would open a pandora’s box and make it difficult for proper administrationofcollectionoftaxesbytheRespondents, it is tritethat each such request forissuanceof C-Forms would have to be individually examined on a case to case basis. It is incumbent on the authority while examining such request in light of Rule 5(4) of the CST Delhi Rules to satisfy himself whether any of the grounds spelt out therein is actually attracted. In the present case there is a valid explanation offered regarding the mistake made by it in not including the aforementioned interstate purchases in the revised returns filed. Also, the authorities appear to be satisfied that these are genuine inter-state purchase transactions with no adverse impact on the revenue of the State. Thirdly, the authority is not precluded from issuing the C-Forms subject to any condit