High Court sets aside assessment orders under Central Sales Tax Act, directs acceptance of Form I for SEZ sales.

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging orders under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-12, directing the respondent to accept Form I and issue fresh orders for sales to "SEZ." The court emphasized the authority's power to extend time for submitting declaration forms and highlighted the circular allowing reopening for new C forms. Referring to a Full Bench judgment, the court held the respondent's refusal to revise the order as untenable, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements. The impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner prevailed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for assessment year 2011-12 due to higher tax rate without Form C and Form I. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition despite alternative remedy of appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged orders passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2011-12, imposing a higher tax rate without Form C and Form I. The petitioner reported a turnover of Rs. 33,50,153, including sales to "SEZ." Despite accepting the reported turnover, the respondent applied a higher tax rate due to the absence of Form C and Form I. The petitioner later submitted Form C and Form I under section 12(7) of the CST Rules, requesting a revision, which the respondent refused. The petitioner argued that the respondent's refusal contravened a circular allowing reopening for new C forms, citing State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad) [FB]. The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an appeal.

The High Court noted the provision under Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules, allowing the authority to extend the time for submitting declaration forms/certificates upon satisfaction of sufficient cause. The court observed the petitioner's regular compliance with statutory requirements and the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, emphasizing the acceptance of new C forms without onus on the assessee. Referring to the Full Bench judgment in Arulmurugan's case, the court highlighted the authority's power to allow further time for C forms, even without specific statutory provisions for reopening assessments. The court held that the respondent's refusal to revise the order was untenable, directing acceptance of Form I and fresh orders in compliance with the law.

In light of the Full Bench judgment and the circular, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and instructing the respondent to accept Form I for sales to "SEZ" for the assessment year 2011-2012 and pass fresh orders. The court concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

---