Declaration forms and alternative remedy: delayed forms may be considered on merits where statute permits further time for sufficient cause.
The writ petition was entertainable despite an alternative statutory appeal because the matter involved no disputed facts and could be decided at the threshold. Under section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rule 12(7), the three-month period for filing declaration forms was directory, not mandatory, and the authority could allow further time for sufficient cause. Declaration forms filed before completion of assessment had to be considered on merits. A provisional assessment based only on delay, without examining the statutory discretion or the forms already filed, was unsustainable and was quashed with a direction for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal; (ii) Whether the declaration forms could be filed beyond the prescribed period and the request for extension of time could be considered; (iii) Whether the provisional assessment order could stand when the forms filed before the order were not considered.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal.
Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy is ordinarily a ground for judicial restraint, but it is not an absolute bar. In financial matters, where no disputed questions of fact arise and the matter can be decided at the threshold, exercise of writ jurisdiction may be justified to avoid prolonged uncertainty and unnecessary hardship.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ petition was entertained.
Issue (ii): Whether the declaration forms could be filed beyond the prescribed period and the request for extension of time could be considered.
Analysis: Section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 permit filing of declaration forms within the prescribed time or within such further time as the authority may allow for sufficient cause. The prescribed period of three months was held to be not mandatory, and the authority could consider an application for extension even after expiry of that period. Forms filed before completion of assessment were required to be considered.
Conclusion: The forms were not barred merely because they were filed after three months, and the request for extension of time was capable of being entertained.
Issue (iii): Whether the provisional assessment order could stand when the forms filed before the order were not considered.
Analysis: The assessing authority rejected the forms solely on the ground of delay, without examining the statutory discretion to grant further time or considering forms already placed before it. That approach was inconsistent with Section 6A(1) and Rule 12(7), and the provisional assessment was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The provisional assessment order was quashed and the matter was remanded for a fresh order after considering the forms and hearing the parties.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief against the impugned provisional assessment, but the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of the declaration forms already filed and any further forms to be submitted within the time fixed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits filing of declaration forms within the prescribed time or such further time as may be allowed for sufficient cause, the prescribed period is directory and forms filed before completion of assessment must be considered on merits.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
