TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh the orders of the respondent passed in CST. No. 818297/2011-12 dated December 16, 2015 and connected proceeding in RC57/B1/2016 dated January 21, 2016. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered dealer and assessee on the files of the respondent. For the assessment year 2011-12, the petitioner effected inter-State sales to various buyers and reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 33,50,153 including a turnover of Rs. 23,95,914 being sales made to "SEZ". Thereafter, though the respondent has accepted the turnover reported by the petitioner, they have adopted higher rate of tax at 14.5 per cent, vide their proceedings dated December 16, 2015 for want of form C and form I. Therefore, it is the grievance of the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition is not maintainable, as the assessee/writ petitioner has invoked this jurisdiction despite the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this court. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract section 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, which is reproduced hereunder: "Rule 12(7). The declaration in form C or form F or the certificate in form E-I or form E-II shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration or the certificate relates: Provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m other States invoking the provision that he (assessee) had tried his best, but it was beyond his control, because C forms were either not readily available or not readily issued in those States, the assessing officers have to be liberal in reopening the reassessing of such cases. Further the High Court of Madras has held in the case of Arulmurugan and Company reported in [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad) [FB] that the proviso to section 8(4) does not insist that the assessee should establish before the prescribed authority that he has prevented by sufficient cause from filing the C forms in time. 'Sufficient cause' spoken of section 8(4) is sufficient cause which appeals to the mind of the authority concerned and which enables it to allow f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent cause, the rest of it is mere procedure or follow up action. Where the assessing authority is satisfied, in a given case, about the existence of sufficient cause, it must necessarily be followed up by appropriate action, such as reopening the assessment already completed. Perhaps the requisite corrective action can be taken by invoking the assessing authority's statutory power of rectification of mistakes. Even otherwise, the implementation, in appropriate cases, of the power to allow further time cannot be withheld on the excuse that there is no express provision either in the statute or in the statutory rules for reopening the assessment. When the power is there and the facts are there demanding its exercise, the implementation mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficient cause for not filing the C forms before the assessments were over. The final orders of the Tribunal, however, were different in the two cases. In one case, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and directed the assessing authority to make the assessment afresh on the basis of the C forms received at the appellate stage. In the other case, without setting aside the assessment, the Tribunal forwarded the C forms to the assessing authority, directing that authority to scrutinise the C forms and find out if they complied with the formalities. 21. Having regard to the considerations which we have set out in the foregoing paragraphs, we must uphold the decision of the Tribunal in both the cases. We hold that the Tribunal has the....