Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. A simple question, that falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the quantum/limit of deferment of sales-tax on sales as provided by the State Government in terms of notification no. S.O.-94 dated 4.4.1994 and notification no. S.O.-227 dated 27.5.1996, issued under the provisions of the section 23-A of the Bihar Finance Act of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act) and under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), read with section 23-A of the Finance Act will cover the taxes under the Finance Act and the Central Act or the said quantum/limit of deferment of sales tax is to be availed of separately in respect of tax under the aforesaid Acts. 2. The factual matrix shortly stated for the disposal of the present case are that the petitioner-Company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and it has taken over assets and liabilities of the erstwhile firm, namely, M/s. Ashirvad Enterprises. It is a small scale industry engaged in manufacturing of PVC pipes and fittings having its factory situated at Danapur in the district of Patna. It is registered both under the Finance Act and the Central Act. It undertook expansion of its existing unit keeping in view the incentive offered by the State Government with regard to the purchase of raw-materials and deferment of sales tax. 3. The State Government with a view to accelerate the industrial growth came out with several policies providing incentives for creating a healthy industrial climate in the State of Bihar. Taking into consideration the aforesaid industrial policy with a view to achieve the object as envisaged in the industrial policy, section 23-A was inserted in the Finance Act by Amendment Act 2 of 1990, which provided deferred payment of tax by the industrial units. According to the said provision, the State Government is empowered to defer the payment of sales tax in the manner as prescribed in the said section. The State Government is also empowered to issue gazette notification laying down the policy and condition for grant of deferment of tax payable under the provisions of the Act. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions, the State Government, vide notification no. The State Government is also empowered to issue gazette notification laying down the policy and condition for grant of deferment of tax payable under the provisions of the Act. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions, the State Government, vide notification no. SO-94 dated 4.4.1994 issued a notification in exercise of power conferred under section 23-A of the Finance Act providing therein benefit of deferment of sales tax on sales leviable under the Finance Act to the registered industrial unit having started production in between 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 on fulfilling condition mentioned in the said notification. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid policy decision contained a provision with regard to eligibility for deferment of tax, the period of eligibility and the quantum of amount of deferment of sales tax. A copy of the said notification has been appended as Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. 4. The petitioner, as asserted by it, being eligible for benefit in terms of the said notification, applied for registration and grant of eligibility certificate and, thereafter, it was granted eligibility certificate on 3.2.1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. According to the said certificate, the commencement of the production was 25.4.1993. The petitioner was entitled to take benefit of deferment of sale-tax till 31.12.2003 or till it avails the deferment of sales tax to the extent of 125% of the fixed assets (Rs. 20,28,750/-), whichever is earlier. The petitioner availed the deferment of tax under the Finance Act to the extent of 125% of the fixed assets during three years i.e. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. While the petitioner was availing the aforesaid benefit of deferment of sales tax under the Finance Act, a notification bearing no.227 dated 27.5.1996 was issued by the Government of Bihar in exercise of the power under section 9(2) of the Central Act read with section 23-A of the Finance Act, which provided, inter-alia, that the industrial units, which have started production in between the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1999 and which have obtained registration under the aforesaid Act and which have been granted benefit of deferment of sales tax in terms of notification of 1994 (Annexure A) will be entitled to the deferment of sales-tax with regard to sales made in course of inter State trade and commerce. A copy of the said notification has been appended as Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. 5. A copy of the said notification has been appended as Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. 5. The petitioner-company treating that the said notification of 1996 (Annexure-B) authorises it to claim deferment of sales tax under the Central Act separately to the extent and up to the limit as mentioned in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A) took the benefit of deferment of sales tax on inter State sale of Rs. 14,62,209.69 for the years 1996-97 to September, 1999. There is no dispute that the return has to be filed by the registered dealer under the Finance Act as well as under the Central Act where the details of the tax realised, deferred, paid etc. are to be specifically mentioned. The petitioner mentioned about these facts in the return filed by it. 6. Several forms are prescribed by the rules framed under the Finance Act as well as under the Central Act for purchasing raw-materiaIs, for sale of manufactured goods and for transportation and despatch of goods. Form XXVIII-B is required for transportation and despatch of goods, Form IX is required for purchase of raw-materials from a registered dealer and Form IXC is required for sale of manufactured goods to a registered dealer. Form C is required for purchase of raw materials during the course of inter State trade and commerce. Unless these forms are available to the registered dealer, he cannot carry out day to day business. Rule 45 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), framed in exercise of the power under section 58 of the Finance Act, confers power on the prescribed authority to reject the application for aforesaid forms, permits etc. on the ground mentioned in the said Rules. Rule 45(b) of the Rules is relevant for the purpose of the present case and which, provides, inter-alia, that if the applicant at the time of filing an application for IX, IXC and XXVIIIB has defaulted in furnishing any return or revised return, together with the receipted challan showing payment of the tax due from him, the prescribed authority shall withhold the issue of such Forms to him until such time as he furnishes necessary return and showing payment of the amount due. 7. 7. On 26.10.1999, the petitioner applied for issuance of the aforesaid forms before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Judges Court Road, Patna (respondent no.3), who directed for issuance of Form XXVIII-B, but respondent no.4, the Commercial Tax Officer, did not issue the said form and on the other hand having noticed that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of deferment of sales tax more than the quantum of deferment permissible in terms of the aforesaid notification of 1994 (Annexure-4) he issued a notice to the petitioner under section 33(1) of the Finance Act, which empowers him to require a dealer to produce the relevant documents etc. for inspection. On 28.10.1999, the petitioner appeared and claimed that in terms of the aforesaid notification, it is entitled to avail quantum of deferment of sales tax as mentioned in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A) separately both under the Finance Act as well as the Central Act. In other words, it is entitled to deferment of Rs. 20,28,750/- under the Central Act and also the same quantum of deferment under the Finance Act and as such the supply of said forms cannot be denied to it on the aforesaid ground. Respondent no.4 considered the matter and found that in terms of the aforesaid notification of 1994 (Annexure-A), the maximum limit of deferment of sales tax as provided by the said notification covered both the taxes payable under the Central Act and the Finance Act and the petitioner having already availed the maximum quantum of deferment of sales tax payable under the Finance Act cannot be allowed to separately claim benefit of deferment of sales tax of the same quantum of deferment or limit of sales tax under the Central Act and he also opined that admittedly in the return, the aforesaid amount of sales tax payable under the Central Act is due from the petitioner and since it has not paid the admitted dues, it is not entitled to the issuance of the said forms in terms of the provision contained in section 45(b) of the Rules, which order has been annexed as Annexure 2 and has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ application. 8. 8. Firstly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the quantum or limit of deferment of sales tax as provided in notification of 1994 (Annexure- A), read with notification of 1996 (Annexure-B) is to be availed of separately with regard to the sales tax payable under the Finance Act and the Central Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the said quantum/limit of deferment of sales tax both under the Finance Act and the Central Act and as such respondent no.4 has wrongly held that the quantum of deferment of sales tax as provided in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A) covers the sales tax both under the Finance Act and the Central Act and benefit of the (sic) should not be claimed separately and on that basis he has also wrongly held that as the petitioner has not paid the admitted due, the forms should not be. supplied to it in terms of Rule 45(b) of the Rules. Secondly, it was submitted that while dealing with the matter at the stage of Rule 45 of the Rules, respondent no.4 cannot go into the correctness of the return filed by the petitioner and refuse to issue forms for failure of the petitioner to pay the admitted tax. 9. Learned counsel for the State combated both the submissions and submitted that in terms of the industrial policy of the State Government, section 23-A was inserted in the Finance Act and in terms of the aforesaid provision, notification no. SO-94 (Annexure-A) issued in the year 1994, which contained a detailed provision with regard to the grant of deferment of the sales tax payable. Paragraph 2 of the said notification lays down the eligibility for deferment of sales tax, the period of eligibility as well as the quantum of amount of deferment. Different provisions have been made with regard to the quantum of deferment of sales tax to the different units taking into consideration their location in the different districts. Paragraph 2 of the said notification lays down the eligibility for deferment of sales tax, the period of eligibility as well as the quantum of amount of deferment. Different provisions have been made with regard to the quantum of deferment of sales tax to the different units taking into consideration their location in the different districts. This quantum of deferment covered both the taxes payable under the Finance Act and the Central Act and sub-sequent notification of 1996 (Annexure-B) was only in the nature of a clarification, which provided that under the terms and conditions as mentioned in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A), if an industrial unit has started production between the relevant period, then it will also get the benefit of deferment of sales tax under the Central Act with regard to the inter State sale, so according to the terms and conditions of the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A), the maximum limit of the deferment of sales tax was fixed and as such though a dealer may avail a deferment of sales tax payable under the Central Act, the quantum or limit of deferment of sales tax under both the Acts should not exceed the limit of deferment and in other words, the limit of deferment covers the sales taxes payable under both the Acts jointly and not separately as urged on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner, admittedly, has availed the quantum of deferment of sales tax payable under the Finance Act and as such it cannot claim benefit of deferment of sales tax in terms of the said provision with regard to the sales tax payable under the Central Act. As the petitioner has filed return, wherein has shown the deferment in excess of the amount which it was permissible in terms of the notifications of 1994 and 1996 (Annexures A and B) the said amount would be treated as a due amount to be paid by the petitioner and as such respondent no.4 was wholly justified in not issuing the forms till the admitted dues are paid as required under Rule 45(b) of the Rules. 10. Both the Acts have been enacted to levy sales tax. They contain a charging section, by which a liability has been created. 10. Both the Acts have been enacted to levy sales tax. They contain a charging section, by which a liability has been created. The Finance Act provides machinery for the assessment of the liability fixed by the charging section and mode of recovery and collection of tax as well as the panel provisions in case of default. The Central Act only contains a charging section and so far as the question of assessment, recovery, collection and enforcement of payment of tax is concerned, section 9(2) of the Act has created the Sales Tax authorities under the State as an agent of the Government of India. The State authority will assess, collect and enforce payment of tax payable by the dealer under the Central Act. 11. As stated above, the Government of Bihar with a view to accelerate the industrial growth came out with incentives in form of deferment from payment of sales tax. Section 23-A was inserted in the Finance Act conferring power on the State Government to give benefit of deferment of sales tax payable to the industrial unit registered under the Act. In exercise of the power under the said section, the State Government came out with a policy decision as contained in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A), which contains a detailed provision regarding the condition to be fulfilled for grant of deferment in the payment of sales tax. Relevant provision for the purpose of this case is paragraph 2 of the said notification, which provides eligibility for deferment sales tax payable, period of eligibility and the quantum of deferment. There is no dispute that so far as the petitioner-Company is concerned, the benefit of deferment is to be availed of by it for a period of 10 years or 125% of the fixed assets (Rs. 20,28,750/-) whichever is earlier. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner availed the benefit of deferment of sales tax under the scheme to the extent of 125% of the fixed assets with regard to the sales tax payable under the Finance Act during three assessment years, namely, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. It is also an admitted position that apart from the aforesaid quantum of sales tax, the petitioner has also availed e deferment under the Central Act to the extent of Rs. 14,62,209.69 for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (till September, 1999). 12. It is also an admitted position that apart from the aforesaid quantum of sales tax, the petitioner has also availed e deferment under the Central Act to the extent of Rs. 14,62,209.69 for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (till September, 1999). 12. In the year 1996, as stated above, notification no. 227 (Annexure-B) was issued by the State Government giving benefit of deferment scheme with regard to the sales tax payable under the Central Act. The term of the notification clearly shows that the benefit of deferment of sales tax with regard to inter State sale was available to such industrial units, who have obtained eligibility certificate in terms of the earlier notification of 1994 (Annexure- A) and they fulfil the terms and conditions mentioned in the said notification, including the period of eligibility of the deferment scheme. In the earlier notification, the quantum or limit of deferment was mentioned and as such reading the two notifications (Annexures-A and B), it is clear that the benefit of deferment of the sales tax under both the Acts will not exceed the limit or quantum of deferment of sales tax fixed in the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A). If the State Government intended to provide separate quantum or limit of deferment of sales tax payable under the Central Act, then it should have clearly provided in the notification of 1996 (Annexure-B), but omission to mention the same and to state that the benefit of deferment of sales tax payable under the Central Act will be available only after the fulfilment of the terms and conditions mentioned therein in the earlier notification clearly indicates that the quantum or limit of deferment of sales tax payable, as provided in paragraph (2) of the notification of 1994 (Annexure-A) will cover the deferment of sales tax under both the Acts. The quantum of deferment is not to be availed of separately under both the Acts. 13. Thus, I fully agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the State that the total amount of deferment of sales tax under both the Acts, which the petitioner was entitled to claim was Rs. 20,28,750/-in terms of the certificate as contained in Annexure-1. The petitioner having already availed the deferment of sales tax payable under the Finance Act was not entitled to claim further deferment of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 20,28,750/-in terms of the certificate as contained in Annexure-1. The petitioner having already availed the deferment of sales tax payable under the Finance Act was not entitled to claim further deferment of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 14,62,209.69 under the Central Act. 14. The relevant provision for deciding the second submission is Rule 45(b) of the Rules, which runs as follows :- "45, Powers to reject applications for permit and declaration form.Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules (b) if the applicant for Forms IX, IXC and XXVIIIB has at the time of making the application defaulted in furnishing any return or revised return, together with the receipted challan showing payment of the tax due from him according to such return or revised return for the furnishing of which the prescribed date or dates, or the extended date or dates, if any, have already expired, the prescribed authority shall withhold the issue of such Forms to him until such time as he furnishes (i) any other return or revised return, together with receipted challans showing payment of such return or revised return, together with such receipted challan or challans, and (ii) any other return or revised return, together with receipted challan or challans showing payment of the tax due according to such return or returns, for the extended date or dates, if any, may have expired after the date of application." 15. If the applicant is a defaulter in furnishing any return or a revised return together with the challan showing payment of tax due from him according to such return or revised return, then the authority is empowered under the said rule to withhold the issue of the forms until such time he furnishes the returns or challan. Rule 45(b) of the Rules corresponds to Rule 31C(b) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and the said provision came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in the case of Mehta Ramnath vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (1972) 30 STC 477 : 1973 PLJR 138 and this court held that the said provision issued a command to the authorities not to issue forms to the defaulter and it does not put an unreasonable restriction. However, if the return has been filed showing a nil return then the authorities are not entitled to reject the return as being incorrect. However, if the return has been filed showing a nil return then the authorities are not entitled to reject the return as being incorrect. No investigation or enquiry in respect of the return filed by the applicant was envisaged or authorised at the stage of the application for issue of forms. The same view has been reiterated in another Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of the petitioner itself, reported in (1995)98 S.T.C. 173 : 1994(2) PLJR 522. It was held therein that at the time of issuance a form, the authorities are not entitled to go into the correctness of the returns. 16. In view of the aforesaid judgments and in view of the provisions contained in Rule 45(b) of the Rules, it is clear that the purpose of the rule is to refuse to issue forms in case of non-furnishing of return or revised return together with the receipted challan showing the payment of the tax due. Once the return or revised return has been filed by the applicant or dealer annexing the challan showing the payment of amount due in terms of the entry made in the challan, then the authority at that stage cannot go into the correctness of the return and refuse to issue form. 17. In the present case, as stated above, there is no dispute that in the return filed by the petitioner, Rs. 14,62,209.69 has been shown payable as tax under the Central Act, but it has claimed deferment of the same in terms of the two notifications (Annexures A and B). The said claim of deferment put forward by the petitioner was in excess of the quantum/limit of deferment permissible in terms of the said notifications and as such the said amount became admitted dues of sales tax payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order holding that as the petitioner has not paid the admitted dues in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 45(b) of the Rules, it is not entitled to issuance of forms. 18. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order holding that as the petitioner has not paid the admitted dues in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 45(b) of the Rules, it is not entitled to issuance of forms. 18. In my considered view, this is not a case of going to the correctness of the return at the stage of issuance of forms, on the other hand, it was a clear case where the amount admittedly due from the petitioner was not paid and challan showing payment was not filed along with the return. On the other hand, the petitioner wrongly claimed the admitted dues as deferment of sales tax in the return. Thus, respondent no.4 has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to issue the forms in exercise of power under Rule 45(b) of the Rules. 19. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 20 I agree.