Declaration form issuance cannot turn on assessment issues; registration amendments also require proper notice and opportunity.

At the stage of issuing statutory declaration form IB, the authority could verify only whether the prescribed form and account particulars were furnished; it could not decide whether the goods were actually used so as to affect concessional treatment, because that question belonged to assessment. The refusal to issue the form was therefore held unjustified, and issuance was directed. A suo motu amendment to the registration certificate, made operative from an earlier date, also failed because the notice did not clearly propose such amendment and proper opportunity was not afforded. The amendment was quashed, while the authority was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law after due notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Officer could refuse declaration form IB on the ground that the petitioner's activities did not amount to the relevant eligible use, and whether such enquiry belonged to the stage of assessment. (ii) Whether the suo motu amendment of the certificate of registration, made operative from an earlier date, was valid in the absence of proper notice and opportunity.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Officer could refuse declaration form IB on the ground that the petitioner's activities did not amount to the relevant eligible use, and whether such enquiry belonged to the stage of assessment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the dealer to furnish the prescribed declaration and the relevant account in the prescribed form. The Officer's function at that stage was confined to verifying whether the necessary form and account particulars were duly supplied. The question whether the goods were in fact utilised in a manner attracting or defeating concessional treatment was held to be part of assessment, not a matter to be adjudicated while issuing declaration forms. The attempt to treat the issue as an ancillary part of assessment was rejected.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue form IB was unjustified and illegal, and issuance of the form was directed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu amendment of the certificate of registration, made operative from an earlier date, was valid in the absence of proper notice and opportunity.

Analysis: The notice relied upon did not disclose a clear proposal to amend the registration certificate; it merely called for books of account to clarify the nature of activities. The revisional authority also failed to address the question of opportunity before the amendment. In these circumstances, the amendment could not be sustained. At the same time, the authority was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity.

Conclusion: The amendment of the certificate of registration was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on the substantive reliefs relating to declaration forms and registration-certificate amendment, while the remaining challenges were not adjudicated on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of issuing statutory declaration forms, the authority cannot decide questions that properly arise only in assessment, and any amendment of a registration certificate must satisfy the requirements of lawful notice and opportunity.

---