JUDGMENT T. S. Thakur, J. In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to furnish to it declaration forms 'C' for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of gutkha and pan masala under different brand names. For that purpose, it purchases raw materials from different sources including those outside the State of Delhi. According to the petitioner it is entitled to a concessional rate of tax in respect of goods purchased in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, if it furnishes a declaration in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority in terms of the Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner appears to have applied to the Assessing Officer for issue of Form 'C' in respect of purchases made by it during the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, giving details of the purchases made from outside the State of Delhi. No declaration forms as requisitioned by the petitioner have however, been issued in its favour forcing the petitioner to file the present petition for an appropriate mandamus against the respondents as indicated earlier. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is inter alia pointed out that while an application seeking declaration Forms 'C' for the year 2003-04 has been received from the petitioner, no such request has been received by them for the year 2004-05. Even in regard to the year 2003-04, the requisite forms could not be issued to the petitioner as the petitioner did not qualify for the issue of such forms in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1956 which inter alia empowers the competent authority to withhold the issue of such forms in case the dealer is in default of payment of tax dues. It is submitted that the dealers' authorised representative was informed about the outstanding tax dues and that he had even inspected the relevant assessment files on 3rd August, 2005 but since the dealer is in default of payment of tax against it, it is not entitled to seek any relief for the issue of the requisite forms. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The issue of the requisite declaration form is not a matter of right with the dealer in cases where the dealer does not satisfy the requirements of the relevant rules. One of the requirements which the Rules prescribe is that the dealer should not be in default of payment of tax. That requirement is not satisfied in the instant case in as much as the respondents have on affidavit stated that the petitioner is in default of payment of tax for the year 2003-04. There is no denial of that assertion by the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner dealer cannot seek a mandamus while it remains in default. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not challenged the constitutional validity of the rule that stipulates the requirements for the issue of the requisite forms. Even otherwise, this Court has, in similar circumstances, upheld the constitutional validity of the rules that prescribed the payment of the outstanding tax amounts as a condition precedent for issue of such forms. Reference in this connection may be made to S.N.E. (India) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others [2003] 15 Sales Tax Today 99. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner had alongwith few others assailed the introduction of gutkha/pan masala in Schedule I to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 by a notification dated 31st March, 2000 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. That petition was, by an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 5th April, 2006, dismissed holding inter alia that the insertion of gutkha and pan masala in Schedule I to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. This Court has also repelled the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that gutkha and pan masala were declared commodities within the meaning of Section 2 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the light of the above, therefore, the petitioner's grievance against non-issue of the forms for the year 2003-04 is not well-founded. In so far as the petitioner's grievance for the year 2004-05 is concerned, the respondents have denied having received any requisition. In the absence of a proper requisition, the petitioner's grievance for the said year also appears to us to be misconceived. In so far as the petitioner's grievance for the year 2004-05 is concerned, the respondents have denied having received any requisition. In the absence of a proper requisition, the petitioner's grievance for the said year also appears to us to be misconceived. In the result, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.