THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14856 of 2011 Date:21.06.2011 Between: M/s.Bharat Electronics Limited. … Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), No.II Division, Vijayawada. … Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14856 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The assessment order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act), for the year 2006-2007 is questioned in this writ petition as illegal, unauthorized and unlawful. The petitioner, a Central Government public sector undertaking, is engaged in the business of manufacture of defence and scientific goods. It has a manufacturing unit at Machilipatnam, Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. At the manufacturing facility in Machilipatnam the petitioner manufactures night vision devises like Hi-Tech Electro Optic equipment, Hand held Thermal Imager, Night Vision goggles and Binoculars, Night Scopes and integrated observation equipments etc. The goods manufactured in the Machilipatnam unit are transferred to Panchkula, Pune, Chennai and Bangalore units of the petitioner company. It is the petitioner’s case that these goods are not sold by the Machilipatnam unit but are only incorporated in the equipment manufactured at the other units, and are eventually sold therefrom to the end customers; and the respective units, which incorporate the components manufactured and transferred by the Machilipatnam unit, pay sales tax on the price of finished goods including the cost of components manufactured and supplied to them by the Machilipatnam unit. The respondent, by the assessment order under challenge in this writ petition, treated transfer of goods by the petitioner to its other branches as sale and levied sales tax on such branch transfers. The petitioner’s contention that goods supplied by them were merely parts and components of goods manufactured by units of the petitioner company located in other states, that they were the goods manufactured by units of petitioner company located outside the State of Andhra Pradesh which are sold to the Defence Services/Paramilitary forces and not the goods manufactured in the Machilipatnam unit, was rejected by the assessing authority. In addition, the assessing authority also rejected the C Forms furnished by the petitioner holding that the composite C Forms for two quarters could not be submitted. When the matter came up before us on 10.06.2011 we granted time to the learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes to obtain instructions. The matter was thereafter adjourned again from 17.06.2011 till today. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing Sri Pushyam Kiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly state that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited v The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (W.P.No.8258 of 2009 and batch dated 28.04.2011) wherein such transfer of goods from the Machilipatnam unit of the petitioner company to the other units located outside the State of Andhra Pradesh were held to be stock transfers and not inter-state sales. The other question, which necessitates examination, is with regards furnishing of defective C Forms by the petitioner. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel Sri P.Balaji Varma that composite C Forms for two quarters could not have been submitted merits acceptance. The respondent – assessing authority should, however, have given the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the defect in the C Form and to furnish C Forms afresh for each quarter separately. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to remand the matter back to the assessing authority only for the limited purpose of the petitioner being afforded an opportunity to cure the defects in the C Forms, and produce C Forms afresh. The first respondent shall issue notice afresh to the petitioner giving particulars of “C Forms” which he found defective, give them an opportunity of being heard, permit them to rectify the defects, and thereafter pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21.06.2011 vs