JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. Order dated 28.1.2019 passed by the 1st respondent refusing to permit the petitioner to file ‘F’ forms in respect of interstate transfer to his branch unit at Karnataka and consequentially reopen assessment proceedings on such score has been assailed in this writ petition.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that his business had closed down and he had left the place of business. Accordingly, he had no notice of the assessment proceedings including the assessment order dated 27.3.2015 passed therein by the 1st respondent in respect of assessment year 2011-2012 following the Best Judgment Method.

3. It is further contended only in 2018 upon recovery proceedings being initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner came to know of the aforesaid assessment order and thereafter made endeavours to collect the ‘C’ forms and ‘F’ declaration forms from the branch office and on 14.1.2019 made a representation to the 1st respondent seeking permission to submit 12 ‘F’ forms with regard to interstate transfer and to reopen the assessment proceedings and give exemption by taking into account the aforesaid ‘F’ declaration forms.

4. He relied on decisions of the erstwhile High Court at Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Godrej Agrovet Limited and Another vs. The C.T.O. Eluru, (2005) 41 APSTJ 92, as well as M/s. Hyderabad Industries vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) 13 APSTJ 181, in support of his contentions. However, the 1st respondent, by the order impugned, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground the factual matrix of the case did not disclose sufficient cause to permit him to file the ‘F’ forms at such belated stage.

5. Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submits that the assessee had intentionally not participated in the assessment proceedings and accordingly assessment order was passed on 27.3.2015 by using Best Judgment Method. The assessee kept silent till steps were taken to recover the tax liability under the Revenue Recovery Act and thereafter made the aforesaid application which was rightly turned down. He submits no sufficient cause permitting enlargement of limitation period envisaged under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the CST Rules’) is made out in the factual matrix of the case. It is further submitted that the ratio in M/s. Godrej Agrovet's case (supra), is inapplicable inasmuch as the said judgment was delivered interpreting the pre-amended rules where a different period of limitation for submission of 'F' forms was prescribed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

7. Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (as amended in 2005 and applicable to the present case) reads as follows:

“The declaration in Form-C of 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 that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforesaid time, the authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit.”

Pre-amended Rule 12(7) of the CST Rules reads as follows:

“The declaration in Form-C or Form-F or the certificate in Form ‘E-I’ or ‘E-II’ shall be furnished to the prescribed authority upto the time of assessment by the first assessing authority:

Provided that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforesaid time, that authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit.”

8. As per the amended rule, the assessee is to furni