IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12983 of 2008 Between: M/S VSN Plastics Private Limited, 50B, SVCIE, Bachupally, Kuthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Managing Director MR. M.V.Sekhar Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, IDA, Gnadhinagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretry, Revenue9CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the appeal in so far as it relates to inter-State sales to a tune of Rs.2,70,95,804/- without providing sufficient time for obtaining the C-Declarations from other state buyers as illegal, arbitrary, high- handed and set aside the same and declare that the 1st respondent in bound to consider the C-Declarations filed by the petitioner covering the disputed turnovers and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare action of the second respondent in dismissing the appeal relating to inter-State sales to a tune of Rs.2,70,95,804/- without providing sufficient time for obtaining the C-Declarations from other State buyers as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and to set aside the same and declare that the first respondent in bound to consider the C-Declarations filed by the petitioner for the disputed turnovers, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic moulded furniture and is a registered dealer under the provisions of APGST and CST Acts on the rolls of the first respondent. The petitioner effected inter-State Sales during the assessment year 2004-2005 furnishing declaration in ‘C’ Form. The petitioner reported net turnover for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the CST Act at Rs.2,70,95,807/- and paid applicable taxes and claimed deferment, in terms of GO Ms. No. 108 dated 20.5.1996. While so, the first respondent by proceedings dated 17.11.2006 levied higher rate of tax on the turnover of the inter-State sales, inasmuch as the petitioner did not produce relevant statutory declarations in Form-C, which was challenged before the Second Respondent. Though the petitioner sought to file the C-Forms to the tune of Rs.2,06,00,000/- on 24.4.2008, the 2nd respondent refused to receive the same inasmuch as, the appeal had already been disposed of on 31.3.2008, though copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner only on 26.4.2008. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner could not produce ‘C’ Forms, in time, for the inter-State Sales effected during the assessment year. He further contends that the action of second respondent in disposing of the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity to produce the ‘C’ forms is illegal and arbitrary. Relying on a decision Godrej Agrovet Ltd., China Pothapally & Another Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru & Another ([1]) he further argued that since the proviso to Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 12 does not prescribe any time limit for filing the statutory forms prescribed under the C.S.T. Act, the assessment ought to have been postponed. He also contends that the right to produce such forms is not extinguished with the completion of the Assessment, but time can be extended by the Assessing Authority and such forms filed after completion of the assessment can be accepted if there is sufficient cause for not producing them before completion of the assessment. Thus, he contends that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to produce ‘C’ forms before the concerned authority and, therefore, sought for remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority. The Second Respondent while disposing of the appeal observed that though the petitioner had sufficient time to obtain and file ‘C’ forms, he failed to furnish the required ‘C’ forms even at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Godrej Agrovet’s case, we permit the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal, within a period of two weeks from today. Accordingly, the impugned order is stayed subject to the condition of the petitioner paying 50% of the tax due, within a period of eight weeks from today, after giving credit of the amount, if any, already paid. It is made clear that the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. June 24, 2008 Copy within three days //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} [1] (2005) 41 APSTJ 92