Franco Indian Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had not been given an opportunity to raise

the necessary objections before the impugned orders have been passed. Further, he had pointed out that filing of Form-F is not mandatory, as held

by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ambica Steels Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . Since, the Respondent had not considered

the issues arising for its decision, on merits, the impugned orders may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Respondent to be

considered afresh, taking into account the objections raised by the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court, directing the

Respondent to consider the matter afresh, after the objections are filed by the Petitioner.

In such circumstances, the impugned orders of the Respondent are set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to raise its objections, if any, and also

make the necessary declarations in Form ''C'' and Form ''F'', if available, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy this order.

However, if Form ''C'' and Form ''F'' are not available the Respondent shall consider the objections raised by the Petitioner and pass appropriate

assessment orders, afresh, within four weeks thereafter.

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.