Statutory declaration forms cannot be withheld for mere arrears unless the statute expressly authorises refusal, with jurisdictional writ review available.

An authority may withhold statutory declaration forms only where the governing statute expressly authorises such action for recovery of tax, penalty or other dues; mere arrears do not by themselves justify refusal of C forms if the Central Sales Tax framework does not provide for that consequence. Judicial review may still lie against a show-cause communication where the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction. Interim mandamus was therefore warranted directing issuance of the C form pending final adjudication, while the underlying liability and recovery issues remained open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether arrears of tax and penalty justified withholding issuance of C form/statutory declaration forms to the dealer; (ii) whether the writ petition could be entertained against the impugned show-cause communication on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether arrears of tax and penalty justified withholding issuance of C form/statutory declaration forms to the dealer.

Analysis: Section 43 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 empowers the assessing authority to withhold statutory or other declaration forms in recovery proceedings where tax, penalty, interest or other amounts are due. At the same time, the record indicated that denial of C form would effectively stall the dealer's business, while the authority had other recovery measures available. The Court also noted that the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 did not itself provide for refusal of C form merely because tax or penalty remained unpaid.

Conclusion: The respondent was not justified in denying C form solely on the ground of alleged arrears, and interim protection was warranted in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained against the impugned show-cause communication on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: Normally, a show-cause notice is not interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, judicial review remains available where the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction. The impugned communication was treated as beyond the respondent's authority insofar as it sought to refuse issuance of C form.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable to the limited extent that the impugned action was challenged as without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: Interim mandamus was justified directing issuance of C form pending disposal of the writ petition, while the underlying questions of liability and recovery were left open for final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority cannot refuse issuance of statutory forms for mere arrears unless such withholding is expressly authorised by the governing statute, and writ interference is permissible where the impugned notice or action is without jurisdiction.

---