IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6498 of 2009 Between: M/s. Johnson & Johnson Limited, Plot No.2 & 3, Satya Complex, Sanjeevaiah Nagar Colony, Tarbund Cross Roads, Secunderabad-500 009, rep. by its Manager, Mr. Ch. Laxmi Prasad Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, 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 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order 3rd respondent in LIII(2)/16/2009, dated 3.2.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.59,66,287/- out of disputed tax of Rs.68,18,614/- pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent for the year 2007-08 under the CST Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. S. DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dt.3.2.2009 in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking stay, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner claims to have obtained ‘C’ and ‘F’ forms for the entire turnover, excluding Rs.14,17,968/-, and to have filed the said forms before the third respondent. The fact that the forms were filed is also acknowledged by the third respondent in the impugned order. However, the application seeking stay was rejected by him on the ground that it was the duty of the assessee to obtain and file the statutory forms before the assessing authority well in advance as required under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules and, since the assessee failed to do so, despite being allowed a reasonable opportunity by the assessing authority, there was no valid reason to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax. 3. It is not in dispute that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd.[1], declaration forms can be filed even at the appellate stage and even in second appeal before the Tribunal. The third respondent was, therefore, in error in refusing to even peruse the C and F forms filed before him. 4. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax, however, contends that only if the C and F forms are found to be genuine, is the assessee entitled to claim concessional rate of tax and, in any event, as the tax of Rs.14,17,968/- admittedly was not covered by C and F forms, the said amount ought to have been paid by the assessee. 5. While the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel are not without merit, the fact remains that the third respondent could not have refused to even look into the C and F forms filed before him, and grant benefit of concessional rate of tax in case the said forms are found to be in order. 6. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the third respondent. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent, who shall examine the C and F forms filed by the petitioner, afford him an opportunity of personal hearing on 7.4.2009 at 11.00 a.m., and thereafter pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Since the forms filed before the third respondent do not cover the tax due for Rs.14,17,968/-, the said amount shall be paid by the petitioner within one week from today. If any amount is already paid by the petitioner to the respondent authorities, the same shall be given credit to. Pending further orders being passed afresh by the third respondent, no coercive steps shall be taken to recover the balance tax. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30.3. 2009 bnr Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B.O) bnr [1] [1994] 94 STC 410 (SC)