Judgment :- Mohammed, J. The writ petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its head office at Bangalore and branch office at Ernakulam. The petitioner company is doing business of buying, selling and supplying insulation materials such as glass wool, fibre glass, mineral wool, rock wool etc. It is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Central Sales tax Act, 1956. Ext. P1 is a copy of the Certificate of registration issued under the Kerala General Sales tax-Rules 1963. Ext. P2 is the certificate of registration issued by the Sales tax Officer, 4th Circle, Ernakulam under the Central Sales tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957. Exts. P1 and P2 were issued on 16.12.1988. 2. The petitioner-company is undertaking works contract according to the requirements of the customers and insulation materials specified in Ext. P2 certificate of registration were purchased by it from outside the State using C forms. It had also used in the regular course of business the delivery notes in Form No. 26 issued by the assessing authority. On 15.11.199 2 the petitioner-company submitted an application to the first respondent requesting to issue on C form book and one new delivery note book as per Ext. P3. However, the first respondent directed the petitioner to produce the particulars regarding the taxable purchases and sales for the assessment years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993. Those particulars were produced before the first respondent by the petitioner as per Exts. P4 and P5. In spite of the production of particulars as above request for the issue of C forms and delivery notes was not considered by the first respondent. When the petitioner's representative met the first respondent soliciting his early action in that regard he openly told him on 16.12.1993 that C forms and delivery notes would not be issued to the petitioner company for the reason that the company was also engaged in the execution of works contract. In the aforesaid background the petitioner filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, for a direction to the first respondent to issue the petitioner-company C forms and delivery notes as requested in Ext. P3 application. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. That the filing of the application by the petitioner-company for the issue of C forms and delivery notes was not disputed. P3 application. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. That the filing of the application by the petitioner-company for the issue of C forms and delivery notes was not disputed. But the counter affidavit admits that C forms and delivery notes were not issued to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner-company is engaged in execution of works contracts in addition to the sales. It is further averred therein that the request to issue C forms was not considered since there was no practice of issuing C form to the contractors as they are not paying tax on works contracts. It appears the definite stand taken by the respondents for not issuing the C forms and delivery notes is that the petitioner-company is engaged in execution of works contracts and it has not paid tax for the previous year or even if there is payment it is nominal. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner points out that the company is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales tax Act, 1956 and hence it is entitled to get the delivery notes and C forms under the provisions of the said Acts. 4. In the premise of the rival contentions referred to above, the question that falls for decision is whether a contractor who is executing works contract is a dealer entitled to receive the 'delivery notes' and 'C forms' and if so, whether the issue of such documents can be withheld on the ground that he is not paying sales tax in respect of the turnover involved in the works contract for the previous years. 5. By the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, Art.366 of the Constitution which deals with definitions has been amended inserting a new clause (29-a ). 5. By the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, 1982, Art.366 of the Constitution which deals with definitions has been amended inserting a new clause (29-a ). Clause (29-a ) states that the expression 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes, interlia, a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made." This amendment no doubt enlarges the scope of the legislative power of the State under Entry 54 of List II and of the Parliament under Entry 92A of List I. Thus, the expression 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' in Entry 54 includes a tax on the transfer of property in goods-( whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contract also. But at the time "the tax leviable by virtue of sub clause (b) of Clause (29-a) of Art.366 of the Constitution thus becomes subject to the same discipline to which any levy under Entry 54 of the State List is made subject to under the Constitution" as observed by the Supreme Court in Builder's Association of India v. Union of India (1989 (2) SCC 645). 6. In view of the above Constitution amendment the Kerala Legislature has introduced certain amendments in the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act, 1984. 6. In view of the above Constitution amendment the Kerala Legislature has introduced certain amendments in the Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963 as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act, 1984. Explanation (3A) which was introduced in the definition clause of the expression'sale (S.2 (xxi) is as follows: "Explanation (3A): A transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract shall be deemed to be a sale." The definition of the word 'dealer' as contained in clause (viii) of S.2 was also amended as follows: "dealer" means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, executing works contract, transferring the right to use any goods or supplying by way of or as part of any service, any goods, directly or otherwise, whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration and includes: - (omitted) In view of the above amendments a person executing works contract is a'dealer' and transfer of property involved in execution of such works contract is a 'sale' coming within their definitions contained in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Thus, the petitioner-company executing works contract is a ' dealer' under the said Act and it is therefore, entitled to all the rights and benefits available thereunder. 7. As observed in A. Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala (1997 (105) STC 357). the delivery note is ' an in dispensable document made available to the dealers in carrying on the business transactions intra-State as well as inter-State. This is the document usually accompanying the transport of goods. The transport of goods within the State by a dealer is prohibited unless he is in possession of a delivery note or way bill or sale bill". Sub-r.(17) of R.32 provides as to when a dealer is bound to issue delivery note and in what form. This is the document usually accompanying the transport of goods. The transport of goods within the State by a dealer is prohibited unless he is in possession of a delivery note or way bill or sale bill". Sub-r.(17) of R.32 provides as to when a dealer is bound to issue delivery note and in what form. The said rule is thus: "(17) Every wholesale dealer while delivering goods to a retail dealer in pursuance of sale where no sale bill is issued or every person who consigns goods by any vehicle or vessel or any other means in pursuance of a sale where a sale bill is not issued or consigns goods through the said means from one godown to another or from one of his shops to another for the purpose of storage or sale, shall issue a delivery note in Form 26". Likewise sub-r.(13)(b) of R.35 states that the delivery note referred to in sub-s.(2) of S.29 shall be in Form 26 and it shall be deemed to be a way bill for the purpose of sub-r.(2) of the said rule, sub-s.(2) of S.29 and clause (i) of S.31. The above provisions sufficiently indicate the different purposes for which the delivery notes were used by the dealers. But no power has been given to dealers to prepare the delivery .,notes by themselves and use the same for the purposes aforesaid. This is evident from the provisions contained in different sub-rules of R.33A which deal with safe custody and procedure on loss etc. of delivery note. The duties and responsibilities of a dealer are specified in R.33A, when the deli very note is issued to him by an assessing authority. Therefore, it can safely be said that it is the duty of the assessing authority to issue delivery notes in book form or in any other manner when the dealer makes a demand in that behalf. 8. Next point for consideration is whether a contractor who is a dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is entitled to receive the C forms prescribed under the Central Sales tax Act and Rules. 8. Next point for consideration is whether a contractor who is a dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is entitled to receive the C forms prescribed under the Central Sales tax Act and Rules. Under sub-s.(1) of S.8 every dealer who in the course of inter-state trade and commerce sells to a registered dealer other than the Government, goods of the description referred to in sub-s.(3) shall be liable to pay the central sales tax at the rate of 4 percent of his turnover. Sub-s.(4) prescribes that the above sub-s.(1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. This declaration shall be in'C form' as prescribed in R.12(1) of the Central Sales tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules 1957. It is thus crystalline that it is the duty of the prescribed authority to issue 'C forms' to a dealer. However, the prescribed authority is not bound to issue C forms to a dealer only because he is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales tax Act. A registered dealer under the said Act shall get himself registered under S.7 of the Central Sales tax Act. Sub-s.(2) of the said Section provides that any dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, may, notwithstanding that he is liable to pay the Central Sales tax, apply for registration under the Act to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority after enquiry issue certificate of registration to a dealer with or without imposing condition specifying the goods under S.8(3) of the Act. Once he becomes the registered dealer under the Central Sales tax Act he is entitled to get the C forms from the prescribed authority. "On a reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it will be seen that once the registered dealer obtains certificate authorising him to purchase the goods mentioned therein, he is entitled to get C form from the officer authorised under the Act to issue". So observed in Colourgraphs v. Sales tax Officer, III Circle, Ernakulam (1993) 88 STC 347). So observed in Colourgraphs v. Sales tax Officer, III Circle, Ernakulam (1993) 88 STC 347). Therefore, the contractor executing works contract is a dealer entitled to receive C forms from the prescribed authority. 9. What remains to be considered is whether the non-payment or payment of tax nominally for the previous years is a ground for non-issuing of delivery notes and C forms or for withholding them under any other manner by the assessing authority. The delivery notes, C forms etc are required by every dealer is the regular course of his day to day business transactions either intra-State or inter-State. The right of every citizen to carry on business or trade is a well recognised fundamental right under the provisions of the Constitution but it is not an absolute or unqualified right. No doubt the State has power to impose reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of such rights in the interest of the general public. But the issue of delivery notes and C forms is not in any way intended to restrict the trade or business; on the other hand, they are intended to regulate the conduct of the trade and business. Withholding of these documents may sometimes result in the complete destruction of trade or business in which event it may amount to total restriction which is impermissible under the law. Of course, misuse of C forms is punishable under S.10 of the Central Sales tax Act. The assessing authority can refrain from issuing delivery notes until the dealer has rendered account of the old delivery notes already issued to him under R.33A of the Kerala General Sales tax Rules. Thus, issue of delivery notes and C forms by the prescribed authorities and their use and preservation by the dealers are controlled by the provisions in the relevant enactments and rules framed thereunder. 10. The non-payment of tax for any year is not a ground for withholding or not issuing the delivery notes and C forms under the provisions of the relative Act and Rules. The payment of tax and issue of delivery of notes and C forms are different processes in the business adventure and former is the duty of the dealer and the latter is the duty of the assessing authority. One is not dependent on the other though both operate in the field of business and trade. The payment of tax and issue of delivery of notes and C forms are different processes in the business adventure and former is the duty of the dealer and the latter is the duty of the assessing authority. One is not dependent on the other though both operate in the field of business and trade. The assessing authority shall not adopt a posture of sabre-rattling and intimidate the dealer by telling that it would withhold the issue of delivery notes and C forms unless he wipes off the arrears of tax for the previous years. Ordinarily the non-payment of tax may be due to various bonafide and honest reasons and in such circumstances, it may not display contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. In this context, let us see what the Division Bench of the Madras High Court said in T. V.P. Nambiar v. State of Madras (W.P. Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1967 and 840 of 1971). "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 S.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". (See: Chanda Paints (Madras) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1986) 61 STC 335). 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". (See: Chanda Paints (Madras) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (1986) 61 STC 335). While examining the validity of R.8(1-a)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales tax (Central) Rules 1957, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered: "We further make a direction that, while considering any application or applications made by the petitioner for obtaining from the appropriate Sales tax Officer (or any other officer as may be authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf ) blank declaration forms in form C, as prescribed under sub-r.(1) of R.12 of the Central Sales tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957, for furnishing them to the selling dealers, the Sales tax Officer (or any other authorised officer) shall not withhold the issuance of the said declaration forms on the grounds either that the petitioner had defaulted in furnishing the return under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, or that he was in arrears of tax under the said State Act." Dawar Brothers v. State of M.P. (1979) 44 STC 286). While considering a claim for issue of declaration forms under R.27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed in Ram Ishwar Bhan v. Commercial Tax Officer (1987) 20 STA 205) observed: "Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has power to withhold the issue of declaration forms only under R.27AA(2)(c). He could withhold the issue of the declaration forms only on the ground that the appellant had defaulted in furnishing any return with receipted chalan showing the payment of tax due from him according to such return or returns, for the furnishing of which the dates had expired. If the respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that the appellant had not made bona fide use of the declaration forms previously issued to him then the respondent No.1 could have rejected the application which he has not done. Under the statutory provisions, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to while issuing declaration forms to call upon the appellant to rectify his reams and pay additional taxes. This is not provided in R.27AA of the Rules nor in any other section of the statute". Under the statutory provisions, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to while issuing declaration forms to call upon the appellant to rectify his reams and pay additional taxes. This is not provided in R.27AA of the Rules nor in any other section of the statute". (Extracted from Swarmdl Choudhury v. Commercial Tax Officer (1988) 71 STC 404). 11. On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that the Supreme Court has admitted Special Leave Petitions SLP (Civil) No. 6100/1993 filed by the State against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 874 of 1992 (Assistant Commr. (Asst.) I & anr. v. M/s. Vishnu Trading Co.). The judgment of the learned single judge in this case was reported in 1992 (2) KLT 4 (Vishnu Trading Co. v. Asst. Commr.). That was a case where supply of delivery notes in blank form was denied to the petitioner on the ground that it would lead to tax evasion. Allowing the writ petition, the learned judge observed: "The mere apprehension of the department that if delivery notes are given to the petitioner in book form it may lead to taxation due to clandestine movement of taxable goods is not a ground for denying delivery notes to the petitioner. When there are adequate provision in the Act to penalise the assessee for tax evasion or abuse of the forms or declaration or violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, denial of delivery notes to the petitioner alone is discriminatory and cannot be supported." Upholding the findings of the learned single judge, the Division Bench further observed: "It may be that the assessing authority has got the discretion to issue delivery notes. B ut, the discretion vested in the authority should be exercised fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. There is no reason or basis to withhold supply of delivery notes to the assessee in book form as required by him". Admitting that the assessing authority has discretionary power to reject the request for issue of delivery notes in book form, it shall be done within the statutory frame work. 12. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, I direct the first respondent to issue C forms and delivery notes to the petitioner-company as requested by it in Ext. P3 application. Admitting that the assessing authority has discretionary power to reject the request for issue of delivery notes in book form, it shall be done within the statutory frame work. 12. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, I direct the first respondent to issue C forms and delivery notes to the petitioner-company as requested by it in Ext. P3 application. The interim order passed by this Court in CMP No. 9270/93 on 16.4.1993 is also made absolute. The Writ Petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs.