THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.172 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram} The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent engaged in the manufacture of computer Peripherals, Electronic type writers, Dot Matrix Printers & UPS’s. For the assessment year 2005-06 under the C.S.T. Act, 1956, the third respondent passed the order of assessment dated 13.03.2009 determining the balance tax due of Rs.18,53,975/- after rejecting, inter alia, the petitioner’s claim for a concessional rate of tax in respect of interstate sales of UPS systems and spares and stock transfers, on the ground that parts of the turnovers in respect of these goods are not covered by “C” and “F” Forms or other documentary evidence to treat certain transactions as interstate sales. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent and along there with an application for stay. It is clearly pleaded by the petitioner (Para-7) that except a dispute relating to non-submission of “C” and “F” Forms, there are no other disputes between the petitioner and the Revenue. By the order dated 27.11.2009, the second respondent rejected the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The second respondent clearly recorded that the petitioner did not file “F” and “C” Forms, which failure led to the third respondent assessing authority declining the claim of the petitioner for a lower rate of tax. As the Forms were not filed even at the stage of appeal, no case was made out for grant of stay. By representations dated 01.12.2009 and 22.12.2009 (subsequent to the order rejecting grant of stay), the petitioner represented to the second respondent to pass orders in the substantive appeal and further, stating that it has now filed “F” and “C” Forms. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2009, the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent seeking stay pending the substantive appeal by the second respondent. By the order dated 29.12.2009, the first respondent rejected the revision petition and declined to grant stay. The first respondent recorded that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the assessing authority had subjected the turnover of Rs.1,22,81,841/- to tax at 10% rejecting the claim for exemption on the said turnover as relating to branch transfers; and subjected a turnover of Rs.97,39,880/- representing interstate sales at 10% in the absence of “C” Forms. The first respondent further recorded that at the time of hearing, the petitioner- company had stated that they are in receipt of “F” Forms covering a turnover of Rs.1,16,12,230/- and “C” Forms covering a turnover of Rs.52,22,304/- and that the petitioner had also filed certain statements showing “F” Form numbers and amounts covered by those “F” Forms as well as “C” Form numbers and the amounts covered under those Forms. In rejecting grant of stay, the first respondent, however, recorded that the petitioner failed to file either the originals or photo copies of the “F” and “C” Forms stated to have been received by it; further noticed that the statements of “C” and “F” Forms furnished before the first respondent were the same as filed before the second respondent-appellate authority. As the “C” and “F” Forms were neither filed before the appellate authority or the revisional authority, the fist respondent held that no case was made out for granting stay. It is the indisputable legal position that only on the filing of “C” and “F” Forms, the petitioners would be entitled to claim the appropriate rate of tax either for interstate sales or stock transfers, as the case may be. In this view of the matter, neither the order of the second respondent nor of the first respondent declining grant of stay pending the substantive appeal before the second respondent, suffers from any error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, discern no reason for interference. However, since the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 22.04.2009 against the order of assessment dated 13.03.2009, we consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of ten {10} days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If “C” and “F” Forms are filed before the appellate authority, these may be considered in disposing of the appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing Sri J.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Krishna Koundinya and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. __________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) __________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J) 12th January 2010 RRB