CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) These cases pertain to certain defects have been pointed out by the 1st respondent in Form-H submitted by the petitioner for claiming exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act, 1956.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there are defects in Form-H, it is not open to the 1st respondent to demand duty under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006. He further submits that as long as Form-H continue to be retained by the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot rectify the mistake in the Form-H.