ORDER : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As both these Revision Petitions impugn a common order of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common order. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the OT Revisions are as follows: The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm that was engaged in the trading of hill produce during the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15. The CST assessments were completed by the assessing authority by granting the assessee the benefit of concessional rate of tax of 2% in respect of interstate sales effected by them and by accepting the declaration in Form-C filed by the petitioner before the assessing authority. 3. About four years later, the revisional authority issued a notice under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act r/w 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act proposing a cancellation of the assessment order on the ground that investigation conducted by the department had revealed that the C-Forms produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority were bogus. In the proceedings that followed, the proposal communicated to the petitioner was confirmed and the assessment order modified by disallowing the concessional rate of tax to the petitioner on the ground that no valid C-Forms had been produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority. 4. It was aggrieved by the order of the revision authority that the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also sought information under the RTI Act from the assessing authorities of the respective buyers in other States, regarding the genuineness of the C-Forms received from those buyers. In response of the RTI query, the petitioner was served with a reply enclosing copies of the C-Forms stated to have been issued from the various assessing authorities of the buyers concerned outside the State. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner produced the reply received from the RTI Commissioner, along with the C-Forms annexed thereto, that bore the signature and seal of the respective issuing officers/assessing authorities of the buyers concerned. The petitioner also produced translations of the said C-Forms before the Tribunal since the C Forms were all in Hindi. The petitioner also produced translations of the said C-Forms before the Tribunal since the C Forms were all in Hindi. The Appellate Tribunal, on a perusal of the said documents, opined that they could not be relied on since they did not bear the signature of the issuing authority or the seal of the office from where they were supposedly issued. Based on the said finding, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeals preferred by the petitioner. It is against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner has approached this Court through the OT revisions above raising the following questions of law. 1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in confirming the differential CST demand for the AY 2012-13 without considering RTI responses received by the Petitioner confirming the genuineness of the Forms furnished by the Petitioner? 2) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the forms were not genuine when the only allegation put forward by the lower authorities was that the forms are not reflecting in TXNSYS which was not a condition prescribed in the statute or the rules? 3) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in upholding the orders passed by the lower authorities exercising powers under the KVAT Act which stood repealed at the time of exercising the powers by the lower authorities? 4) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in upholding the orders passed by the lower authorities when the assessment order was clearly time barred? 5. We have heard Sri.Jose Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Government Pleader for the respondent State. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submission made across the Bar, we find that the reasons cited by the revenue, for cancelling the original assessment order that allowed the concessional rate of tax of 2% against C-Forms, was their finding on investigation that the C-Forms produced by the petitioner assessee were bogus. However, the petitioner assessee had, in response to a RTI query, obtained certificates from the assessing authorities concerned having jurisdiction over the purchasers in the other States, that the C-Forms were genuine and had actually been issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner assessee had, in response to a RTI query, obtained certificates from the assessing authorities concerned having jurisdiction over the purchasers in the other States, that the C-Forms were genuine and had actually been issued to the petitioner. The reply received in response to the RTI query, together with the C-Forms that bore the signatures and seals of the issuing authority in the other States, were produced before the Appellate Tribunal along with the translations thereto. We have also perused the copies of the C-Forms that were produced before the Appellate Tribunal, which have also been produced along with the OT revisions. We note that while the signature and seal of the issuing authority in the other States is clear in the Hindi version, the seal and signature cannot be seen in the translated version in English. We have reason to believe that it was probably by referring to the translated version that the Tribunal came to the finding that the C-Forms produced were not duly authenticated. Inasmuch as we find that the C-Forms produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal were actually duly authenticated as borne out from the Hindi version, we have to find that the original assumption by the revenue that the C-Forms produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority were bogus cannot be legally sustained. Since the very basis for the cancellation of the assessment originally done on the assessee has been dis-lodged through the production of the copies of the C-Forms issued, we cannot sustain the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and restore the original assessment order pertaining to the assessee under the CST Act for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 respectively. The questions of law raised in the OT Revisions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.