Pradesh (as it then was) in the case of Godrej Agrovet Liruited China Pothapalty v. Commercial Tox Offcer, Elurut wherein it has been in very categorical terms held

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to accept the declarations filed by the petitioner in Form-C and Form-F and refusing to pass revised orders for the assessment year 2002-2003 under the csT Act inspite of producing the declarations covering the inter-state sales, branch transfers and consignment transfers through the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, contrary to the provision of the Act as well as the settled awl on the subiect and set aside the same and declare that the petitioners liability has to be determined afre t h by considering the declarations sought to be filed by the petitioner since thr> petitioner has valid reasons due to which it was prevented from filing the declar rtions by the time of assessment and b) declare that prescription of time limit unrl rr Rule 12(7) of CST (RandT) Rules for filing the declarations in Form-F and C tl) rugh neither Section 64 nor Section B prescribes any time limit as invalid and ultr: virus. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 (WPMP. NO: 22835 0F 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci', umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou-i maY be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to receive the declarations sou(, t to be filed by the petitioner and direct the 1st respondent to re-compute the i x liability in the light of the declaration for the assessment year 2002-2003 unj;r CST Act pending d isposal of the WP. WRIT PETITIO N NO: 17567 OF 2008 Between: Ittl/s. Aclamar Oils and Fats Limited., Aparna Crust, 4th Flo: ' 8-2-1201112188 and 89, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hydeiabad, Rep. by its [/ rnager (Finance) Mr' Priyadarshan. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Circl' , Saroornagar Division. Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government c ' Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretil v' Revenue (CT) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 a ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc i I praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more )articularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the action of I ,: 'lst respondent in refusing to accept the declarations filed by the petitioner ir Form-C and Form-F and refusing to pass revised orders for the assessment year ?-003-2004 under the CST Act inspite of producing the declarations covering the inter-State sales, branch transfers and consignment transfers through the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, contrary to the provision of the Act as well as the settled alw on the subject and set aside the same and declare that the petitioners liability has to be determined afresh by considering the declaralions sought to be filed by the petitioner since the petitioner has valid reasons due to which it was prevented from filing the declarations by the time of assessment and b) declare that prescription of time limit under Rule 12(7) of CST (RandT) Rules for filing the declarations in Form-F and C though neither Section 64 nor Section 8 prescribes any time limit as invalid and ultra virus. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 22837 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to receive the declarations sought to be filed by the petitioner and direct the 1st respondent to re-compute the tax liability in the light of the declarations for the assessment year 2003-2004 under CST Act, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner in both the writ petitions: SRI S. RAVI Counsel for the Respondents in both the writ petitions: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF I ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SANI KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICI SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition Nos.17565 and 17567 of ',t't08 Dated: 30.12.2 025 W.P.No.l7565 of 2008 Between: M/s.AWL Agri Business Limited, Aparna Crust, 4'h floor, 8-2-120 / ll2l88and g9, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep by its Manager (Finance) Mr. Priyadarshan. AND The Commercial 'l'ax Officer, Special Commodities Circle, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad and others. .l)etitioner Rcspondents COMMON ORDER: (pcr l{on'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Kct:, v) Hcard Mr.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for he petitioner and Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Governnt,: t pleader for State Tax. Perused the record. 2 -

2. The present writ petitions have been field assailing the action of respondent No. I in refusing to accept the declarations filed by the petitioner in Form-C and Form-F and also in refusing to revise the assessment orders for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 under CST Act. Even though after the assessment orders, the petitioner had produced Form-C and Form-F before the authorities concemed.

3. The refusal by the respondent authority appears to be on the ground that the authorities not having the power to accept those Form-C and Form-F after the assessment order having been passed. ln support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Bench to a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh i.e., the unified Andhra Pradesh (as it then was) in the case of Godrej Agrovet Liruited China Pothapalty v. Commercial Tox Offcer, Elurut wherein it has been in very categorical terms held as under: ' zoos 1+t1 aesl sz 3 "lt is thus clear that sub-rule (7) of Rul' 12 of the Rules confers power upon the assessing a,^'horifit to receiye C forms where sfficient cause is slr, wn by the dealer -for not fling them up to the t me of assessment. There is no limitation as such pr ''vided for receiving the Cforms and they can be recz ved at any time after the order of assessment, pr lvided sufficient cause is shown.... "

4. The said order passed by the High Court i 'L the case of Godrej Agrovet Liniled (supra) has also been reiterated in subsequent decisions as well. So far as submissions c ['the Form-C and Form-F is concemed, the authorities were held ,r th powers to entertain with such lorms even if they have br: n submitted subsequent to the assessment orders passed. Th: .rgh, learned Special Govemment Pleader ret-ers to Rule 12 ol' APCST Act where the limitation lor the same is one year which t :,o was taken note of by the Hon'ble Coufts while passing the orc r:rs as in the case of Godrej. In the teeth of the aforr s ,Lid judicial pronouncements and which has been reiterated suL ,iequently as well, we are of the considered opinion that the disputt: n the instant case also, since it revolves only so far as non-conside 'ation by the .-- 4 authorities of the Form-C and Form-F which the petitioners have submitted so far as the interstate sale is concemed and also so far as conslgnment sales and claiming concessional rate of tax on submission of Form-C is concemed

5. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow these two writ petitions for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 to the aloresaid extent where it is directed that let the petitioners produce afiesh the Form-C and Form-F that is there in their possession for the aloresaid two assessment years before respondent No. I or whosoever is the present jurisdictionat Assessing Officer, who in tum shall accept the same and after due scrutiny of the same and also after due verification of those forms may pass appropriate orders so far as the assessment orders for the aforesaid two assessment years are concemed by reconsidering, passing of fresh orders in accordance to enquiry. These two writ petitions stand allowed and disposed of. 6 At this juncture, leamed senior counsel referred to an affidavit which has 6gs, submitted by the petitioner dated 5

29.10.2025 contending that Form-C and Form-F which were available with the petitioners at the relevant poir t of time, has meanwhile got lost or misplaced and has gone ur.raceable and thereby sought the permission of the Court to r r,ly upon the photographs and also undertakes to provide necessarJ confirmation fiom the authorities fiom which those C-Forms and r-Forms have been issued, which shall also be taken note by resprt rdent No.1 or concerned jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowec and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendinll if any, shall stand closed. That the Rule Nisi has been made Absolute as state I above Witness the Hon'ble The CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESI-l (UMAR SINGH, on this Tuesday, the Thirtieth Day of December, Two Thousan(l rnd Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. MADHAVI S ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER /1\ , \r, t\rl To, '1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Crrr;l .l Saroornagar Division Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government r I A.P Hyderabad 3. The Secretary Revenue(CT) Department, Government r l'Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4, One CC to SRl. S RAV, Advocate [OPUC] - - c".H " 5TwoCCstoSRISWAROOPOORILLA,SPECIALGPFORCOIVIMERCIAL ior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] -Court iAi,-H,gh 6. Two CD CoPies DAN BS Prtc. HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 l COMMON ORDER WP.No.17565 & 17567 OF 2008 \ r' 1 rtr STJ ft' .\) o r I fEB 2026 tSr:;u'C. ,l 't ),' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS f p.t^ to I r-\ r-6'