2018 (2) TMI 1479 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Issuance of Statutory C Forms - CST Act, 1956 - interstate purchases and transit sales under Section 6(2) - denial of exemption granted for transit sales under Section 6(2) on the ground that the petitioner has not filed the Statutory Forms C/E1 in support of such exemption claimed - Held that - It may not be necessary for this Court to delve on this issue any further on account of the factual turn of events which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. Assuming if the amendment to the prayer as sought for by the petitioner is to be considered and granted, then it would be in direct conflict to order passed by the respondent rejecting the representation made by the second respondent to issue Form C declaration as such request made by the second respondent has been rejected by the first respondent vide order dated 29.11.2017 and communicated to the second respondent. As long as the order remains in tact, the question of considering the prayer for an amended relief does not arise, that too, at the instance of the writ petitioner. Neither the prayer as sought for by the petitioner can be granted nor the amendment sought for can be permitted - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue Statutory C Forms under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for three Assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14. Maintainability of the writ petition and the proposed amended relief.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in executing turnkey solutions, sought writ of mandamus for Statutory C Forms under Central Sales Tax Act for three assessment years. They had declared interstate purchases and transit sales but faced denial of exemption due to lack of Form C declarations. The second respondent's inability to generate online Form C led to assessment orders against the petitioner, which were challenged in appeals subsequently dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief, emphasizing the non-action by authorities despite representations for Form C issuance.

The Court noted the petitioner's attempt to amend the prayer to direct issuance of C Form declaration to the second respondent. However, the first respondent rejected the request for C Forms, making the amended relief conflicting. Citing a previous case, the Court highlighted the issue of locus standi and the inability of dealers to compel C-Declaration Forms issuance when authorised dealers default. Consequently, the Court found the writ petition not maintainable for the relief sought or the proposed amendment.

The Court observed that considering the amendment would contradict the order rejecting the second respondent's request for Form C declaration. As long as this order remained valid, the Court deemed the consideration of an amended relief unnecessary. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition, vacating interim orders but allowing the petitioner to pursue other available remedies within the legal framework. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

In conclusion, the Court's decision centered on the maintainability of the writ petition and the proposed amended relief, emphasizing the conflicting nature of the amended relief with the first respondent's rejection of Form C issuance to the second respondent. The Court's dismissal of the petitions did not preclude the petitioner from seeking alternative legal remedies.