Bona fide error in CST return justified writ relief and acceptance of a revised return before fresh assessment.

A bona fide inadvertent error in a CST return was treated as sufficient to justify writ intervention where the statutory appeal under Section 31 carried a mandatory pre-deposit burden. The HC held that, in these circumstances, it would be unjust to insist on the alternative remedy and entertained the petition under Article 226. It also found that the discrepancy was supported by related returns and material, and that Rule 14-A(5-A) permitted revision before original assessment. The assessment was therefore set aside and the assessee was allowed to file a revised return for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was entertainable despite the statutory appeal remedy and the condition of mandatory pre-deposit. (ii) Whether the assessment order based on an inadvertent error in the CST return could be sustained, or whether the petitioner was entitled to file a revised return and have the assessment reconsidered.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was entertainable despite the statutory appeal remedy and the condition of mandatory pre-deposit.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal under Section 31 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was noticed, along with the requirement of pre-deposit. The Court accepted that where the dispute involved a claimed bona fide mistake in the return and the appellate remedy carried a mandatory financial burden, insistence on relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal would be unjust in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable and was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order based on an inadvertent error in the CST return could be sustained, or whether the petitioner was entitled to file a revised return and have the assessment reconsidered.

Analysis: The Court found that the discrepancy in the CST return was a bona fide inadvertent error and that the petitioner had disclosed the correct turnover in the related returns and supporting material. Rule 14-A(5-A) of the CST (Telangana) Rules was read as permitting revision before original assessment, and the Court held that a human error of this kind should not be allowed to cause irreversible prejudice. The assessment was therefore set aside so that a revised CST return or representation could be filed and a fresh assessment made on that basis.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to file a revised return for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in having the impugned assessment annulled and the matter reopened for fresh assessment on the basis of a revised return, while the procedural objection based on alternate remedy was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide and inadvertent mistake in a tax return, brought to notice before final assessment, can justify writ intervention and warrant acceptance of a revised return for fresh assessment, especially where insisting on the alternative statutory remedy would be unduly burdensome.

---