IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8929 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Vamsi Traders, D.No. 3/488-2, YMR colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr. T. Sivasankar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Proddatur, Kadapa District and another .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO) Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and with his consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. This writ petition has been instituted in effect calling in question the orders passed by the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 12.1.2010 passing an order of assessment and determining the tax due as Rs.9,39,039/-. The case of the petitioner is that it was a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent carrying on business in purchase and sale of coriander and that it has effected certain consignment transfers in favour of its agents in other States and consequently claimed exemptions under Sec. 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. In support of its claim, it filed declarations in Form ‘F’ issued by the other State Authorities. The first respondent has allowed the exemptions as claimed. At that stage, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 4.11.2009 proposing to revise the orders passed by the first respondent – Assessing Authority, in terms of the power available to him under Sec.20(2) of the A.P. GST Act. The second respondent has suggested that the ‘F’ forms which have been produced by the writ petitioner contained the transactions of more than one calendar month whereas, in terms of Rule 9-A(2s) of the CST (A.P) Rules read with Rule 12(5) of CST (R & T) Rules, 1956, the ‘F’ forms are required to contain the transactions calendar month-wise only. The question, while the Central Sales Tax Rules, which do not insist upon the transactions to be recorded in each ‘F’ form for every calendar month, whether the same can be insisted upon by the State was engaging the attention of this court in another batch of cases. Hence, we are not required to pronounce any opinion thereon. However, the writ petitioner has come forward with a plea saying that if the ‘F’ forms which have been issued by the other State agencies are returned to him, he will get them accordingly rectified/modified, containing the transactions for every calendar month, so as to satisfy the requirement of A.P. State Rules. Thereafter, the matter requires consideration at the hands of the second respondent. Hence, we propose to remit the matter for fresh consideration to the second respondent duly setting aside the impugned order, directing him to provide two months time from the date of returning ‘F’ forms produced by the petitioner, so as to enable the writ petitioner to get them rectified/modified by the respective State agencies, containing the transactions for every calendar month therein and after taking into account and consideration the rectified ‘F’ forms which the writ petitioner will produce, then the second respondent will examine afresh and pass orders in accordance with law thereafter. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 28, 2010 Copy within two days //BO// MAS