IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4068 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MR.E.AZIES, M/S.A.H.W.WOOD INDUSTRIES, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-16. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD-686 019. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4068 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 interim order issued by the 1st respondent while disposing stay petitions filed by the petitioner along with Ext.P2 &P2(a) appeals. The claim raised by the petitioner for remitting payment of Central Sales Tax Act at concessional rates on the basis of C-forms with respect to interstate transactions effected, has been rejected through Ext.P1 & P1(a) orders of assessments, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the required C-form declarations within the time stipulated under Rule 12(7) of the CST (R&T) Rules, 1956. Contention of the petitioner is that all the required C-form declarations were in fact produced before the assessing authority, prior to completion of the assessment. But the non acceptance was only due to the technical objection based on the provisions contained in Rule 12 (7). According to the petitioner, the objection raised in this regard is not sustainable in view of the fact that the proviso to Rule 12(7) remains unaltered inspite of the stipulation of the time limit introduced through amendment to Rule 12(7). The petitioner relies on a decision of this court in WP(C). 19179/10 (Ext.P4), in order to canvass the above position. W.P.(C).4068/11 -2- 2. However, while considering the interlocutory applications for stay, the 1st respondent appellate authority observed that the entire C-forms were produced before the assessing authority. It is further observed that the assessing authority had rejected the same only in view of the restrictions imposed under Section 12(7). The appellate authority also considered the contentions of the petitioner to the effect that the assessing authority ought to have condoned the delay in submitting C-forms, based on Ext.P4 Judgment, and also based on the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 12(7). Eventhough the appellate authority had adverted to all such contentions, that no opinion, rather any prima facie opinion, was arrived with respect to the merits of such contentions. On the other hand, the appellate authority had straight away proceeded to impose a condition for granting stay, insisting upon the petitioner to make payment of 20% of the amount and to furnish security for the balance. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had already produced C-form declarations before the assessing authority which will cover the entire liability of the tax assessed. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P5 order need reconsideration. However, in W.P.(C).4068/11 -3- view of the fact that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider the appeals itself and to dispose of the same on an early basis. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 and P2(a) appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 and P1(a) shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing Security Bond, without sureties, for the entire demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb