Delayed C-forms require reasoned consideration of sufficient cause; a bare rejection for delay is unsustainable.

Belated C-forms could not be rejected merely because they were filed after the prescribed period where the statute and rules permitted delayed filing on sufficient cause being shown. The assessing authority was required to consider the dealer's explanation and decide the request for condonation with proper application of mind; a bare reference to delay was insufficient. As the assessment orders did not meaningfully address the objection filed in response to the delay, the rejection was unsustainable and the matter required fresh reconsideration by the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether belated C-forms could be rejected without considering the assessee's explanation and whether the assessment orders required reconsideration under the proviso to section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules.

Analysis: The proviso to section 8(4) permits furnishing of the declaration within the prescribed time or within such further time as may be allowed for sufficient cause, and rule 12(7) likewise empowers the prescribed authority to permit delayed filing where the dealer shows sufficient cause. The assessment orders only noticed that the C-forms were filed beyond the stipulated period and did not meaningfully consider the explanation submitted in objection. An order rejecting belated C-forms must reflect an application of mind to the request for condonation and the sufficiency of the cause shown; the defect cannot be cured by later explanations in the counter affidavit. The matter therefore required fresh consideration by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of the belated C-forms was unsustainable for want of proper consideration of the explanation and the matter had to be reconsidered by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits delayed filing on sufficient cause being shown, the assessing authority must decide the request for condonation by considering the dealer's explanation, and a bare rejection on the ground of delay is invalid.

---