Equitable writ relief over Form-C issuance denied where prior misuse and instalment default undermined the petitioners' claim.

Form-C under section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Rule 12 of the CST Rules is a statutory declaration for concessional inter-State purchases, but writ relief to compel its issuance remained discretionary and equitable under Article 226. The Court held that the petitioners' admitted default in paying instalments after accepting the instalment order, together with the alleged misuse of Form-C, had a direct bearing on the relief sought. It accepted that the authorities could refuse further relief to prevent abuse in the circumstances and found the petitioners not entitled to a direction for issuance of Form-C.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ directing issuance of Form-C, and whether the respondents could refuse or withhold Form-C on account of the petitioners' non-payment of instalments and prior misuse of Form-C.

Analysis: Form-C is the statutory declaration contemplated by section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, enabling concessional central sales tax treatment for qualifying inter-State purchases. The Court held that the petitioners had earlier represented that they would clear the dues in instalments and had accepted the order permitting instalment payment, but after paying one instalment they stopped paying further amounts. In such a situation, the petitioners' conduct had a direct nexus with the relief sought, because the very grievance arose in the context of alleged misuse of Form-C and the continued default in paying the penalty imposed for that misuse. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioners as factually inapposite and treated the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as discretionary and equitable. The Court also noted the relevant Daman Rules and the Bombay Rules relied on by the parties, and prima facie accepted that the authority could act to prevent further abuse in the circumstances, though it found it unnecessary to finally pronounce on that issue independently.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the equitable relief of a direction for issuance of Form-C, and the respondents' refusal to grant the relief was upheld.

---