Section 6A(2) inquiry requirement vitiates CST assessments when form F declarations are rejected without recorded satisfaction.

Writ jurisdiction was not justified on the alleged denial of natural justice because the record showed multiple opportunities to respond, so the availability of an appellate remedy was not displaced on that ground. However, where form F declarations were furnished under the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority was bound to conduct the inquiry under section 6A(2) and record satisfaction on the truth of the branch transfer claim before rejecting it. As no such statutory inquiry was shown, the assessments were held vitiated, the assessment orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry and reassessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy on the ground of violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether the assessments were vitiated for failure to conduct the inquiry mandated by section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where there is a real breach of natural justice, but the sufficiency of opportunity has to be assessed on the facts. The notices and opportunities shown on record, including the pre-assessment proceedings under the Central sales tax regime, demonstrated that the assessee had multiple opportunities to respond and produce records. The allegation that the assessment was made without fair hearing was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and did not justify bypassing the statutory appeal remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessments were vitiated for failure to conduct the inquiry mandated by section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Once form F declarations were furnished, the assessing authority was required to make an inquiry and reach satisfaction as to the truth of the declarations before treating the movement as a sale. The impugned assessments showed only an ad hoc rejection based on non-filing of certain records and inspection findings, without any recorded inquiry under section 6A(2). The statutory requirement was treated as mandatory, and the assessments could not be sustained on a mere assumption that the transfer claim was false.

Conclusion: The assessments were vitiated for non-compliance with section 6A(2), and the writ petitions succeeded on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessments succeeded only on the statutory inquiry ground, resulting in setting aside of the assessment orders and a remand for fresh inquiry and reassessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer furnishes form F declarations in support of a claim of branch transfer, the assessing authority must conduct the inquiry contemplated by section 6A(2) and record a satisfaction on the truth of the declarations before rejecting the claim; failure to do so vitiates the assessment.

---