P. K. MISRA, J. - The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass order on the letters dated September 18, 2002 and October 9, 2002 in accordance with the decision of the Madras High Court in Quality Enterprises v. Additional Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer [2002] 127 STC 504.

Even if the prayer appears to be innocuous and prima facie there is no difficulty in giving a direction to the first respondent to consider the letter and pass orders, in view of the contentions raised by both the counsel appearing for the parties and particularly the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is necessary to delve into the matter in some detail.

The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 35465 of 2002 for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue C forms as per the various letters of request. The said writ petition was disposed of on September 13, 2002 with a direction to the respondent to consider the representations and to take appropriate action in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter on September 18, 2002, the petitioner requested the first respondent to pass orders within one week and to issue at least three numbers of declarations in form C, pending disposal of the said representation. It is submitted by the petitioner that the first respondent instead of passing any order as per the direction of the High Court in W.P. No. 35465 of 2002, issued notice in Re. No. 2387 of 2002 dated September 30, 2002 calling for objections from the petitioner. Soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply dated October 9, 2002 and requested the first respondent to comply with the direction of the High Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that neither the direction of the High Court has been complied with nor C form declarations have been granted. It is stated that at this stage that the petitioner made a representation in person before the third respondent and requested to give suitable direction to the first respondent. It is stated that the third respondent advised the petitioner to meet the first respondent to obtain requisite C form declarations and thereafter the petitioner was told by the first respondent that entire assessment records have been sent to the second respondent and the petitioner was therefore advised to contact the second respondent for the grant of C forms. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has passed any order.

The counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was the proprietor of a hotel, "C" forms are not at all required to be given to the petitioner.

In Nambiar v. State of Madras (W.P. Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1967 and 840 of 1971), a division Bench of this Court by order dated April 27, 1971 observed as follows :

"......... There is no provision in the Act which authorised the Commercial Tax Officer to refuse to provide the assessee with C forms. If the assessee misused the C form, that will be punishable under section 10 of the Central Act. Beyond that, it had no effect, not even in tax. The Commercial Tax Officer was not constituted as a policeman to regulate and conduct the assessee along with virtuous path. If the assessee had registered himself under the provisions of the Central Act, he was, as a matter of right, entitled to get C forms from the officer, who had no authority to refuse the same ......."

The aforesaid decision was followed in the subsequent decision reported in [1986] 61 STC 335 (Mad.) (Chanda Paints (Madras) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, Madras-5).

In [1998] 109 STC 625 (AP) (A.P. Gas Power Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer) after referring to relevant provisions, it was observed :

"Thus from the reading of the above provisions it is clear that at the stage of issuing of 'C' declaration form, the notified authority i