C-Forms and alternative remedy rules barred concessional CST relief and writ challenge to the tax assessments.

Concessional inter-State tax on sales of dals and pulses was held unavailable without furnishing C-Forms as required under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with the relevant rules; in the absence of a valid Government exemption, the higher rate under section 8(2) applied. The earlier relaxation was stated to have operated only up to 31.03.2015, and pending representations did not create a right to waiver or legitimate expectation in a taxing context. The writ challenge was also held not maintainable because an effective statutory appeal lay against the assessment orders, and no exception justifying bypass of that remedy was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim concessional inter-State tax on sales of dals and pulses for the relevant period without furnishing C-Forms in the absence of a Government exemption; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment orders.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim concessional inter-State tax on sales of dals and pulses for the relevant period without furnishing C-Forms in the absence of a Government exemption.

Analysis: Concessional tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is available only where the selling dealer furnishes the prescribed declaration in Form C in the manner required by section 8(4) read with Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. In the absence of C-Forms, the transaction falls under section 8(2) and tax becomes payable at the higher applicable rate. The earlier Government orders granting relaxation were held to extend only up to 31.03.2015, and no further exemption was shown for the period up to the commencement of GST. Mere pendency of representations could not create a right to waiver, and legitimate expectation was held inapplicable in taxing matters.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to concessional tax without furnishing C-Forms for the relevant period; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment orders.

Analysis: The assessment orders were appealable under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 31 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is available, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised, especially in tax matters, and no exception such as violation of natural justice or patent illegality was found to justify bypassing the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner failed both on merits and on maintainability, and the challenge to the assessment demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional inter-State tax under the CST regime requires strict compliance with the statutory declaration requirement, and absent a specific exemption the higher rate applies; where an efficacious appeal lies, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to challenge tax assessments.

---