J.B. Leather Fertilizers and Company vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent dated January

19, 1999 in his proceedings in CST No. 565296/94-95, quash the same and for a consequential direction to accept the ""C"" forms produced by

the petitioner pertaining to the inter-State sale of leather meal for the assessment year 1994-95.

The brief facts leading to the writ petition is that the petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

Vellore (Rural), Vellore District. The monthly returns filed by the petitioner claiming exemption on its transaction of leather meal was rejected by

the respondent and the petitioner challenged the said order in W.P. No. 842 of 1995 and the said writ petition was admitted and interim stay was

granted. Thereafter, the respondent passed the assessment order for the year 1994-95 in CST No. 565296 dated December 24, 1996 arid the

said order was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 4890 of 1997 and the same was dismissed by order dated June 24, 1997 since the

order refusing to grant exemption was withdrawn subsequently. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax

Act, 1959 read with Sections 8(4) and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to accept the ""C"" forms of the petitioner. The said petition filed by

the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is empowered to

accept the ""C"" forms as requested by the petitioner in his petition filed u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with Sections 8(4)

and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to file

C"" forms. The request of the petitioner to accept the ""C"" forms was negativated by the respondent only on the ground that the same has not been

filed in time. The respondent has not taken into consideration of the reasons explained by the petitioner in his petition wherein the petitioner has

stated that there was a delay in getting the ""C"" forms from the dealers before the assessment order was passed. When the petitioner is entitled to

furnish the ""C"" forms on merits of the case, the said request cannot be rejected on technical ground. Hence, the learned counsel seeks for setting

aside the impugned order with a consequential direction to accept the ""C"" forms.

The learned Government Advocate on the other hand would submit that in the absence of any proper explanation on the part of the petitioner to

submit the ""C"" forms in time, the impugned order cannot be assailed. In fact, even before the assessment order was passed, the petitioner was

given pre-assessment notice dated November 12, 1996 with a request to file their objections. Even though the said notice was served on the

petitioner on December 3, 1996, the petitioner did not file their objections nor produced the forms. Hence, the final order of assessment was made

on December 24, 1996 confirming the proposal and levying tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,87,837 and Rs. 5,81,756 respectively. The said

assessment order has not been challenged by the petitioner. After a lapse of nearly 10 months the petitioner filed a petition on September 15, 1997

to accept the ""C"" form declarations which was rightly rejected by the respondent on the ground that there was no proper explanation. Hence, the

learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to file ""C"" form declarations on the facts and circumstances of the transaction. The request of the

petitioner to accept the ""C"" form declarations was rejected not on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the acceptance of ""C"" form

declarations on merits of the case, but only on the ground that the ""C"" form declarations have been filed belatedly. When the very entitlement of the

petitioner to file ""C"" form declarations on the merits of the transaction is accepted, such request for acceptance of ""C"" form declarations cannot be

rejected on the technical ground of delay more particularly, when the respondent is empowered to accept such ""C"" form declarations even after the

assessment order is made. As stated by the learned Government Advocate, it is true that the petitioner has not filed appeal as against the

assessment order. However, that will not prevent the petitioner to file application u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with

Sections 8(4) and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act requesting the respondent to accept the ""C"" form declarations. The petitioner in his petition

has stated that he could not get the ""C"" forms from the dealers and furnish the same before the assessment order was made. When the entitlement

of the petitioner to file application u/s 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with Sections 8(4) and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act

is accepted on the merits of the nature of transaction, in order to render substantial justice, the petitioner is entitled to the direction as sought for to

the respondent to accept the ""C"" form declarations which were filed admittedly, belatedly. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent

rejecting the request of the petitioner to accept the ""C"" form declarations on the ground of delay cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set

aside and the respondent is directed to accept the ""C"" form declarations of the petitioner pertaining to the inter-State sale of leather meal for the

assessment year 1994-95. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.