IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.10329 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.9.2010 M/s Dow Chemical International P. Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks direction for acceptance of ‘C’ Forms entitling the petitioner to claim concessional rate of tax in respect of sale to registered dealers in the course of inter-State sale, as per the provisions of Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 framed under the Central Sales Tax, 1956. 2. During assessment of sales tax for the assessment year 2004-05, additional demand was created against the petitioner, rejecting its claim for concessional tax, permissible on production of forms mentioned above. The said order was upheld in appeal but on further appeal, the Tribunal permitted production of ‘C’ Forms and ‘F’ Forms and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for verification of the forms. The petitioner CWP No.10329 of 2010 was able to get four more forms and sought review to the effect that the order should cover the said forms also. This prayer was declined with the following observations:- “....On the second issue raised before the regarding entertainment of certain declarations in form C and F, claimed to have been presented before us at the time of hearing of appeal, we are not inclined to accept the plea because there is no evidence of the same having been produced before us at that time.” 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that subject to the forms being genuine, the petitioner was entitled to produce the same at any stage in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 2364 and judgment of this Court in M/s Varsha Spinning Mills Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 Pb.& Hry. 195. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, the impugned order has been justified on the ground that time had already been given to the petitioner and therefore, belated production of the forms could not be allowed without any justification being shown. 5. We are of the view that claim of the petitioner has to be upheld. In Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. it was observed:- “The aforesaid observations show that the mere use of the words "the first assessing authority" in sub- rule (7) of Rule 12 cannot and does not mean, in the context and scheme of the enactments concerned 2 CWP No.10329 of 2010 herein, that the appellate authorities do not have the power to receive Form-C in appeal. This power can of course be exercised only where sufficient cause is shown by the dealer for not filling them up to the time of assessment before the first assessing authority.....” 6. In the present case, the explanation of the petitioner is that the forms were issued by the dealers in question after the decision of the appellate authority and on that ground, the same could not be produced earlier. As noted in the quoted part of the order of the Tribunal, during the hearing, the forms were sought to be produced, which was not allowed. In view of explanation given by the petitioner that the forms were received late, it could be held that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner for not producing the said forms before the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority which was no bar to the same being produced before the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct respondent No.4 to allow the petitioner to produce the forms in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 08, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3