2016 (4) TMI 784 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking direction to issue C Forms - Payment made by purchasers for certain goods ordered but failed to supply the C Forms - Recovery of differential amount under assessment order - in lieu of nonissuance of C Forms for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 - Held that - a writ petition could be entertained, still we do not find that on the one sided version of the petitioners we can direct the respondent No.5 to issue any such C Form and in relation to a transaction concluded as far back as in 2010. It is found from the entire petition and its annexures that the petitioners having met the tax liability and also obtained the benefit of an adjustment for future, do not deserve any discretionary and equitable relief in our writ jurisdiction. It may be that there is an obligation to issue the Form, but having found that such a request is made belatedly and is barred by delay and laches, and secondly, it is only on the version of the petitioners that we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 against a Public Limited Company for failure to issue "C" Forms.
2. Delay in seeking relief through writ jurisdiction after completion of commercial transaction.
3. Comparison with judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court regarding similar cases.
4. Discretionary and equitable relief in writ jurisdiction based on the facts presented.

Issue 1:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 against a Public Limited Company, respondent No.5, for failing to issue "C" Forms as per the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules. The petitioners argued that the respondent's failure to fulfill this statutory obligation justified the writ petition. However, the court noted that the commercial transaction was completed years ago, and the petitioners could have pursued civil remedies for the tax liability instead of resorting to a writ petition.

Issue 2:
The court considered the delay in seeking relief through writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that the petitioners had ample time to address the issue through other legal avenues. The court highlighted that the petitioners' belated attempt to seek a writ after several years from the completion of the transaction was not justifiable. The court found that the petitioners could have recovered the differential amount through a civil suit rather than through a writ petition.

Issue 3:
The petitioners relied on judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts to support their case. The court discussed the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Gauhati High Court in similar cases. It noted that those cases involved specific circumstances where public entities were involved, and the failure to issue "C" Forms was based on legal grounds related to the contracts. The court distinguished those cases from the present situation, where the delay in seeking relief and the nature of the transaction did not warrant intervention through a writ petition.

Issue 4:
Regarding discretionary and equitable relief in writ jurisdiction, the court analyzed the facts presented by the petitioners and concluded that they did not merit such relief. Despite acknowledging the obligation to issue the "C" Form, the court found that the petitioners' delay in seeking redress and the lack of justification for the writ petition led to the dismissal of the petition. The court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction based on the circumstances of the case and the petitioners' failure to demonstrate a valid reason for the delay in seeking relief.