ORDER V. V. S. RAO, J. M/s. Sai Tirumala Papers Private Limited, the petitioner in this writ petition filed on August 19, 2010, assails the final assessment order, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter, "the CST Act"), of the Commercial Tax Officer, Vengalaraonagar Circle, Hyderabad, (hereafter, CTO II), dated March 12, 2010. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act) on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir Circle (hereafter, CTO I), the second respondent herein. During 2009-10, the petitioner shifted its office from the factory premises within the jurisdiction of CTO I to Hyderabad within the jurisdiction of CTO II. The petitioner approached this court directly ignoring the alternative remedy under section 31 of the VAT Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act. In such circumstances this court does not, ordinarily, exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. At the time of preliminary arguments on August 31, 2010, the counsel, however, made the point to deviate from the normal rule. As the counsel is right that the case involves only verification of the file as to whether the petitioner submitted certificates in form C to claim concessional rate of sales tax, we summoned the records from the offices of CTO I and CTO II. A perusal of the files (nay thorough verification) by the Bench - after permitting the special counsel for the State and the petitioner; unveils a shockingly sorrow state of affairs which, prima facie, appear to have been a fait accompli to help the assessee. Therefore, we summoned the officers and, on their request, permitted them to file their affidavits. They filed counter-affidavits. We heard the matter before, and after, affidavits were filed by the two respondents. The synoptic introduction of the case as above can be better appreciated by the analysis of the case and counter case including various files produced before this court. Therefore we may give some more background of the matter. The petitioner is a manufacturer and seller of paper products with their unit at Panthangi Village, Chouttuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. They are CST dealers on the rolls of CTO I. During 2006-07, they effected inter-State sales including to two Chennai traders, namely, M/s. National Traders for a turnover of Rs. 19,38,034 and obtained three C forms and M/s. ASA Paper Stores for a turnover of Rs. 3,21,917 and obtained two C forms. They are CST dealers on the rolls of CTO I. During 2006-07, they effected inter-State sales including to two Chennai traders, namely, M/s. National Traders for a turnover of Rs. 19,38,034 and obtained three C forms and M/s. ASA Paper Stores for a turnover of Rs. 3,21,917 and obtained two C forms. They further allege that though they did not submit C forms along with the returns for 2006-07 with CTO I, they submitted three C forms on August 13, 2007 and two C forms on July 13, 2007 to CTO I. The petitioner shifted their administrative office to Hyderabad within the jurisdiction of CTO II during 2009-10. Thereafter, CTO II took up assessment of the petitioner for 2006-07 under the CST Act. He proposed to assess the turnover of Rs. 39,21,125 at 10 per cent as this was not covered by C forms. A show-cause notice dated February 9, 2010 was issued to that effect. The petitioner submitted its reply on February 13, 2010 and allegedly filed "certain C forms" and declarations received from purchasers and requested the assessing authority to allow concessional rate of four per cent on the turnover of Rs. 22,59,951 covered by the five C forms submitted earlier. CTO II did not accept the plea of the petitioner to allow concessional rate of tax on the assessed turnover of Rs. 22,61,787 as not covered by C forms and levied tax at 10 per cent in a sum of Rs. 2,26,179. The petitioner then sent a letter dated March 31, 2010 enclosing five duplicate copies of counterfoils of C forms and allegedly sought rectification of the assessment order under rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the VAT Rules, for brevity), in vain. Default in payment of the assessed tax led to recovery notices, dated June 28, 2010 and October 8, 2010 being issued, followed by a notice for recovery of tax from third parties under section 29 of the VAT Act. A notice dated July 17, 2010 was issued to the petitioner's banker, namely, State Bank of India, Balanagar Branch. In these certiorari proceedings, the petitioner seeks an order to quash the assessment order dated March 12, 2010, under the CST Act, for 2006-07 and for further directions to CTO II to levy concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Rs. In these certiorari proceedings, the petitioner seeks an order to quash the assessment order dated March 12, 2010, under the CST Act, for 2006-07 and for further directions to CTO II to levy concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Rs. 19,38,034 based on the counterfoils of three declaration forms available with the petitioner. We have the counter-affidavit of Ms. G. Sumathi, the incumbent CTO II. We also have on record the counter-affidavit of Sri K. Venugopala Rao, the officer who held the position as CTO I during the period from August 11, 2009 to May 14, 2010. On record, is available the deposition of Md. Anwar Pasha (described as memo filed by him), the officer holding the position of CTO I from May 15, 2010. Before dealing with the contentious issues, it is important to sum up the contents of these three affidavits. Sri Md. Anwar Pasha admits that, on the petitioner's request by a communication dated January 8, 2010, the assessment file was transferred to CTO II duly informing him that the assessments for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, under the CST Act, are pending. Then he refers to a letter dated April 5, 2010 which allegedly emanated from CTO I addressed to CTO II. For ready reference, we may quote paragraph 2 from his deposition, which reads as under : "It is submitted that during the month of April, 2010, the petitioner approached the office of the 2nd respondent stating that it was informed by the first respondent that three of its C declaration forms which were earlier submitted in the office of the second respondent were not available in the assessment record and requested the second respondent to either return the same or transfer them to the first respondent. In my capacity as the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir, I informed the petitioner that the entire record was transferred to the first respondent and no record was available with the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir. The petitioner then furnished a xerox copy of its earlier letter dated August 13, 2007 along with copies of the enclosures attached thereto. In my capacity as the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir, I informed the petitioner that the entire record was transferred to the first respondent and no record was available with the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir. The petitioner then furnished a xerox copy of its earlier letter dated August 13, 2007 along with copies of the enclosures attached thereto. After perusing the said letter and the documents filed along with it, I got them verified with regard to the authenticity of the acknowledgement, then addressed a letter dated April 5, 2010 to the first respondent, wherein it was stated that three C forms furnished by the petitioner were misplaced, and that efforts were being made to locate them. A copy of the said letter was also given to the petitioner. Subsequently, on May 15, 2010, I took charge as Commercial Tax Officer, Mahaboobnagar pursuant to departmental transfers." Sri K. Venugopala Rao took charge as CTO II on May 14, 2010. In his affidavit, while opposing the writ petition on the plea of alternative remedy, he states that for 2006-07, the petitioner filed certain C forms on various dates and that three of them were misplaced in the office of the CTO II. He further states as follows. The petitioner filed three C forms on August 16, 2007 along with a letter, dated August 13, 2007 seeking E1 forms required for making transit sales, which were issued on the same day. In April, 2010, the petitioner approached the office informing that three C forms submitted were available in the record and requested to transfer them. On being informed, the entire record was transferred to CTO II. The petitioner furnished a copy of the letter dated August 13, 2007 along with copies of the enclosures that he verified the documents as to the authenticity of acknowledgement of the staff and wrote the letter, dated April 5, 2010 to the first respondent stating that the C forms furnished by the petitioner were misplaced. After the writ petition was filed, the action taken by CTO I and the result thereof, in his own sworn statement reads as under : "After the filing of the writ petition, this respondent instructed his staff to trace the said C forms. They could not trace them out. The record assistant who received the C forms was transferred to Miryalaguda. They could not trace them out. The record assistant who received the C forms was transferred to Miryalaguda. He was requested to go-over to office of this respondent to help this respondent to trace out the said C forms. After a thorough search they were found in another file and are now submitted to this honourable court. On further enquiry with the said record assistant as to why the acknowledgement/receipt of C forms was not entered in the inward register, it was brought to my notice that they were kept in the E1 and E2 register, as the letter dated August 13, 2007 contained a request for issuance of E1 forms. This respondent now understands that the record assistant after receiving the letter dated August 13, 2007 kept the same in the E1 register instead of entering the same in the inward register and keeping them in assessment file. Hence, they could not be traced out earlier. The delay in tracing out the said forms is neither wilful nor wanton but only under the circumstances stated above." The CTO II, Ms. G. Sumathi admits that the petitioner's file was transferred to her jurisdiction with advice that the assessments for three years under the CST Act are pending. It is further submitted that after giving a show-cause notice inviting objections, the impugned assessment order was passed denying concessional rate of tax. Further, it is alleged that on March 31, 2010, the petitioner addressed a letter duly communicating five xerox copies and duplicate counterfoils of C forms (originals of which, were allegedly submitted earlier) to CTO I. As these are xerox copies of counterfoils, the answering respondent did not respond and issued notices for recovery of the amounts due. On July 28, 2010, the petitioner addressed a letter to CTO II enclosing a letter dated April 5, 2010 of CTO I stating that the C forms submitted by the petitioner, which were acknowledged by the office, were misplaced and were traced subsequently; she was informed that, after filing the writ petition, as a result of a thorough search the office of CTO I traced C forms, but they were not yet handed over to her office. The counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, which form part of the writ affidavit, submits that if the C forms submitted by the petitioner were misplaced, the petitioner cannot be denied concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales. He submits that under law, there is no requirement of submitting C forms before or during assessment, and they can be submitted even at a later stage. He nextly contends that the CTO II, after verifying the acknowledgement given by the concerned staff member evidencing the submission of C forms, had sent a communication on April 5, 2010 and, thereafter, the misplaced C forms have been traced. In view of this, the application filed by the petitioner on March 31, 2010, enclosing duplicate copies of the counterfoils, ought to have been taken into consideration for rectifying the omission under rule 60 of the VAT Rules. Per contra, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy; the petitioner filed the instant writ petition with considerable delay; and the xerox copies of duplicate counterfoils or duplicate counterfoils of C forms, are not sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. An analysis of the impugned assessment order, and a perusal of the relevant files, would show the following. In the return in CST VI, the petitioner disclosed CST sales during 2006-07 of Rs. 97,75,848. This includes inter-State sales against C forms (Rs. 82,55,119). After scrutiny, CTO II issued a notice dated July 10, 2009 informing the petitioner that, as required under rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 (the CST Rules, for brevity), C forms are required to be filed within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration relates, and they were requested to file the C forms. In spite of sufficient time, they were not submitted. A show-cause notice dated February 9, 2010 was issued proposing to levy 10 per cent sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 39,21,125 which is not covered by C forms, and Rs. 3,45,431 towards deemed export sales not covered by H forms. The authorized signatory submitted a letter dated February 15, 2010 informing that they are verifying the records, and requested time till February 26, 2010. 39,21,125 which is not covered by C forms, and Rs. 3,45,431 towards deemed export sales not covered by H forms. The authorized signatory submitted a letter dated February 15, 2010 informing that they are verifying the records, and requested time till February 26, 2010. On the same day, the Managing Director of the petitioner sent a letter bearing No. STPPL/Form C/2009-10 to CTO I enclosing five C forms in relation to inter-State sales for the fiscal year in question. These are not the sales effected by the petitioner to M/s. National Traders and M/s. ASA Paper Stores, Chennai. They are for different concerns in Chennai and Bangalore. The CTO II then passed the impugned order taking into consideration the five C forms submitted by the Managing Director. As a result of this, the turnover covered by C forms went up to Rs. 59,93,332 (it was Rs. 43,33,994), and reducing the turnover not covered by C forms to Rs. 22,61,787 (earlier at the proposal stage, it was Rs. 39,21,125). As the demanded tax was not paid, within seven days from the date of receipt of the impugned order, a notice of recovery dated July 17, 2010 was issued under section 29 of the VAT Act to the petitioner's bankers demanding payment of tax. It is alleged by the petitioner that the letter dated March 31, 2010, which was issued by the authorized signatory to CTO II to rectify the assessment order, was not considered. Along with the said letter, while enclosing copies of two letters, bearing Nos. STPPL/Form H/05/2006-07 dated June 13, 2007, and STPPL/Form H/05/2006-07 dated August 13, 2007, as well as five xerox copies of duplicate C forms (C form Nos. 0938245, 0938246 and 0941010 issued by M/s. National Traders and C form Nos. 1483527 and 1483528 issued by M/s. ASA Paper Stores), requested for grant of seven days time for submitting the original C forms. Two letters of the petitioner are signed by the Director of the petitioner. After receiving a copy thereof the authorized signatory, vide reference No. STPPL/7/10-11 dated July 20, 2010, informed that the C forms of the customers were already submitted. The CTO II, having no power to review the assessment order, did not take any action and initiated recovery proceedings under section 29 of the VAT Act as stated supra. After receiving a copy thereof the authorized signatory, vide reference No. STPPL/7/10-11 dated July 20, 2010, informed that the C forms of the customers were already submitted. The CTO II, having no power to review the assessment order, did not take any action and initiated recovery proceedings under section 29 of the VAT Act as stated supra. The petitioner requested to withdraw the notice under section 29 of the VAT Act. Again the two xerox copies of duplicate C forms submitted vide letter dated June 13, 2007, and three C forms submitted vide letter dated August 13, 2007, were enclosed. On July 28, 2010 the authorized signatory addressed another communication wherein it was stated that they had produced copies of the letters dated June 13, 2007 and August 13, 2007, with the office seal acknowledging submission of three C forms, before the CTO I, and that he had addressed letter bearing No. CST/2006-07, dated April 5, 2010 to CTO II informing him that three C forms were acknowledged by his office, that they were found misplaced and, therefore, they were not enclosed with the assessment file for 2006-07, and that efforts were being made to trace the C forms. The documents and communications referred to hereinabove are found in the assessment file for 2006-07. Curiously the letter bearing Rc No. E1/29/2009 dated January 8, 2010 by CTO I to CTO II transferring as many as ten files which include VAT and CST files is not found in any files. The file bearing No. E1/29/2009 containing 51 pages including the letter at page Nos. 39 and 41, also shows that the files were acknowledged by CTO II on January 29, 2010. One expects all the files which stood transferred from Bhongir office to Vengalaraonagar office to contain the communication from the CTO I transferring the files. We have perused eleven assessment files (including one registration record) submitted to the court by CTO II without any success to find the communication referred to hereinabove. The inward register, for the period from December 31, 2009 to September 9, 2010, is also available in the record. The communication of CTO I, transferring the files to CTO II, is also not entered. The inward register, for the period from December 31, 2009 to September 9, 2010, is also available in the record. The communication of CTO I, transferring the files to CTO II, is also not entered. At page 15 of the inward register, the entry/serial No. 85 shows that a communication was received from one M/s. Saboori Pharma Private Limited on January 27, 2010, and the next entry/serial No. 86 is return from M/s. Hitesh Chemicals and Drugs acknowledged on February 4, 2010. We are only pointing out these aspects to show that the requirement of proper maintenance of records and filing of correspondence in the proper files, which is generally followed in the Totenham system of filing, was not at all kept in mind. It has become a habit for the officers to deal with the files, and correspondence in a very casual manner creating adverse effect on the democratic norm of accountability and transparency in public administration. The ensuing further analysis of the other files which were compiled, after filing the writ petition, would support the prima facie view expressed herein. The instant writ petition was filed on August 19, 2010. It was listed on August 31, 2010 for admission. We directed production of records. Records were produced on September 15, 2010. Between August 31, 2010 and September 14, 2010, both officers especially CTO I seemingly moved very promptly to trace the missing C forms which would certainly help the petitioner claiming concessional rate of tax. It is presumably because of the observation falling from the Bench that the communication, dated April 5, 2010 by CTO I to the effect that C forms were acknowledged by his office and they were misplaced appears to be a collusive afterthought. The C forms were allegedly acknowledged by one Sri Ch. Swamy, the then record assistant. As he was working at the office of CTO, Miryalaguda, he was summoned to Bhongir. Statedly, he made a search for two days and found the C forms in E1 and E2 issue registers along with application for issue of statutory forms. Sri Swamy gave a letter on September 14, 2010 to that effect. This is mentioned in the counter-affidavits filed by CTO I and CTO II. Statedly, he made a search for two days and found the C forms in E1 and E2 issue registers along with application for issue of statutory forms. Sri Swamy gave a letter on September 14, 2010 to that effect. This is mentioned in the counter-affidavits filed by CTO I and CTO II. Thus a case is sought to be made out that the record assistant acknowledged the C forms along with two letters on June 13, 2007 and August 13, 2007, and kept it in a wrong register. The fact is that they were not entered in the inward register, and the E1 and E2 registers are not placed before this court. The file bearing No. A/31/2010 (action taken record of CTO I) reveals this. There is another unnumbered file. This deal with the request of the petitioner's authorized signatory to send C forms to CTO II and the office copy of the letter, dated April 5, 2010 by CTO I to CTO II informing that the C forms were acknowledged and they were misplaced in the office. As a first step before considering the merits of the petitioner's case, we would like to make the following observations based on a thorough perusal of the assessment file for the year 2006-07, and the records submitted by CTO I, before drawing appropriate inference. (a) The petitioner submitted fifteen (15) monthly returns (some of them with delay) before the CTO I under rule 15 of the CST Rules in CST VI for 2006-07. In the returns for April, May, June, July and August, the entire turnover of intra and inter-State sales was shown as a cumulative amount. On these forms in CST VI, there is not even the office seal. In the return for September, an amount of Rs. 14,15,414 was declared as inter-state sales turnover. On these also, there is no office seal. As per the returns, the petitioner effected inter-State sales in the months of October (Rs. 6,01,407), November (Rs. 17,27,929), December (Rs. 11,20,858) and January, 2007 (Rs. 11,71,628). The office seal is found on these six returns. The petitioner did not submit the required forms, including C forms along with returns for September and October, 2006. As per the returns, the petitioner effected inter-State sales in the months of October (Rs. 6,01,407), November (Rs. 17,27,929), December (Rs. 11,20,858) and January, 2007 (Rs. 11,71,628). The office seal is found on these six returns. The petitioner did not submit the required forms, including C forms along with returns for September and October, 2006. (b) The return for November was filed on December 22, 2006 enclosing a statement of "VAT clarification vouchers" for the period from November 1, 2006 to November 30, 2006 which shows that the petitioner effected one sale on November 1, 2006 and three sales on November 12, 2006 to M/s. National Traders, Chennai. Similarly, along with the return for December, which was filed on January 22, 2007, the statement for vouchers of inter-State sales for the month of December was enclosed showing four sales on December 15, 2006, two sales on December 19, 2006 and three sales on December 29, 2006 to M/s. National Traders. A similar statement was enclosed along with the return for January, 2007, filed on February 21, 2007 showing four sales on January 17, 2007 and one sale on January 31, 2007 to M/s. National Traders. There were two sales effected on February 1, 2007 and February 25, 2007 as per the statement enclosed to the return for February, 2007. However, there is no such statement enclosed along with the return for March, 2007, which was filed on April 7, 2007. On May 21, 2007, the Director of the petitioner addressed two letters enclosing certificates in form H in respect of M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises and form F for the value of Rs. 5,34,038 sales made to M/s. National Traders. (c) The CTO I issued a show-cause notice (SCN) being ASSMT No. .../2006-07 (CST), dated December 29, 2008 inviting objections with regards the proposal to tax net turnover of Rs. 74,42,749. It was mentioned therein that the dealers are not eligible for any exemptions since they did not file the required details and documentary evidence. In response thereto, the petitioner sent a letter being Reference No. STPPL/Form-C/01/2006-07 dated August 27, 2008 enclosing fifteen C forms in respect of sales effected to fifteen (15) purchasers in Chennai, Bangalore and Pondicherry. These do not include any C forms in respect of "inter-State sales" effected to M/s. National Traders or M/s. ASA Paper Stores, Chennai. In response thereto, the petitioner sent a letter being Reference No. STPPL/Form-C/01/2006-07 dated August 27, 2008 enclosing fifteen C forms in respect of sales effected to fifteen (15) purchasers in Chennai, Bangalore and Pondicherry. These do not include any C forms in respect of "inter-State sales" effected to M/s. National Traders or M/s. ASA Paper Stores, Chennai. (d) The CTO I issued notice being Declarations/2006-07/CST, dated July 10, 2009 to the petitioner informing that as per rule 12 of the CST Rules, declarations in form C or F or the certificates in forms E1 or E2 shall be furnished to the prescribed authority within three months after the end of the period to which the declarations or the certificate relates to. Therefore the petitioner was requested to file declarations in forms C/F within three (3) days. There was no response from the petitioner nor any representation of the petitioner to CTO I clarifying about the submission of C forms and requisition for furnishing of forms E1 and E2. At that stage, the CTO was very firm that C forms evidencing the transactions with M/s. National Traders and M/s. ASA Paper Stores, Chennai, were not available. Curiously, in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Venugopal, present CTO I, an averment is made on oath that they were misplaced in the office. If really, they were misplaced, there would not have been any necessity to issue the notice dated June 10, 2009. (e) About two months after receiving the notice dated July 10, 2009 from CTO referred to supra, the Managing Director of the petitioner addressed a letter dated September 19, 2009 requesting CTO I to transfer all assessment files to CTO II. Necessary form VAT 112 was enclosed for the purpose. When the CST assessment file is the running file, the said requisition does not find place at page No. 405. A separate file is now compiled being File No. E1/29/2009 which contains such requisition for transferring the files. This also creates a doubt. (f) After receiving form VAT 112, CTO I allegedly issued directions vide UO Note No. E1/29/2009 dated December 23, 2009 requiring all staff members in the office to note and report any arrears payable by the petitioner. A separate file is now compiled being File No. E1/29/2009 which contains such requisition for transferring the files. This also creates a doubt. (f) After receiving form VAT 112, CTO I allegedly issued directions vide UO Note No. E1/29/2009 dated December 23, 2009 requiring all staff members in the office to note and report any arrears payable by the petitioner. Five of the officials (presumably the DCTOs, ACTOs and other staff members) endorsed to the effect that no arrears are due up to the year and assessment for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are pending. One of the staff members endorsed that he has verified the way-bill register and C forms register for the year 2009-10, and re-validated fifty (50) way-bills for 2009-10. He also endorsed that the petitioner filed 92 C' forms for 2005-06, 48 C' forms for 2006-07, 49 C' forms for 2007-08 and 57 C' forms for 2008-09. None of these officials endorsed that the submitted 'C' forms relate to the inter-State transaction with M/s. National Traders and M/s. ASP Paper Stores. After receiving necessary response from all the officials, on January 8, 2010 the ACTO puts up a note proposing to send/transfer the registration file and VAT returns of the petitioner from 2005-06 to 2009-10 to CTO II. A covering letter dated January 8, 2010 was sent to CTO II along with the registration file, C forms, way-bills and VAT assessment files from the years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Curiously, the note file relating thereto was seen by the CTO on November 8, 2010. The correspondence beginning from the letter of the petitioner dated September 19, 2010 till the letter transferring the files to CTO II ought to have been in the same file which they call registration file. Curiously, a separate file was run which obviously shows that an attempt is made to compile a file after filing of the case. (g) After receiving the registration file and assessment files, CTO II issued a show-cause notice on February 9, 2010 proposing to tax the inter-State sales at a higher rate. A show-cause notice dated September 8, 2010 was issued. Inter-State sales of paper products of Rs. 43,33,994 was proposed to be taxed at four per cent and an amount of Rs. 39,21,125 was proposed to be taxed at 10 per cent. The former was covered by C forms, and the latter was not covered. A show-cause notice dated September 8, 2010 was issued. Inter-State sales of paper products of Rs. 43,33,994 was proposed to be taxed at four per cent and an amount of Rs. 39,21,125 was proposed to be taxed at 10 per cent. The former was covered by C forms, and the latter was not covered. A show-cause notice was received by a representative of the petitioner on February 10, 2010. In reply, the petitioner submitted a letter No. STPPL/Form C/2009-10, dated February 15, 2010 enclosing four C forms relating to the sales made to M/s. Shree Packers, Excel Packagings, Bhargav Packagings, Mano Packers and Latha Industries. The two sales made to Chennai purchasers are not even referred to therein. After receiving the response, CTO II passed final assessment order dated March 12, 2010 which is impugned in the writ petition. (h) In the writ petition a plea is taken that three numbers of C forms covering a turnover of Rs. 19,38,034 were submitted to CTO I. Presumably to make up for the petitioner, CTO II alleges that after receiving the impugned assessment order dated March 12, 2010, the petitioner submitted a letter dated March 31, 2010 enclosing five xerox copies of duplicate counterfoils of C forms allegedly submitted to CTO I. These were ignored as they are not originals and notice of recovery of tax was issued. At that stage, the scene again shifted to the office of CTO II. (i) After receiving the impugned assessment order dated March 12, 2010, the petitioner addressed a letter dated April 5, 2010 to CTO I. The summary of the letter is that they have submitted three C forms issued by M/s. National Traders, Chennai on August 16, 2007, that the same were not transferred to CTO II and, therefore, a request was made to send copies of C forms. They also enclosed a covering letter accompanied by two statements of three xerox copies of C forms. The xerox copy of the covering letter contains the round seal with initials of an official dated August 16, 2007. No information was given about this to CTO II. As already mentioned, CTO II issued notice dated July 17, 2010 under section 29 of the VAT Act proposing to recover the tax arrears under Land Revenue Act. The xerox copy of the covering letter contains the round seal with initials of an official dated August 16, 2007. No information was given about this to CTO II. As already mentioned, CTO II issued notice dated July 17, 2010 under section 29 of the VAT Act proposing to recover the tax arrears under Land Revenue Act. At that stage, on July 28, 2010, the petitioner addressed a letter to CTO II enclosing a copy of the letter dated April 5, 2010. On the same day, CTO II sent a letter bearing No. CST/2006-07, dated April 5, 2010 to CTO II informing that three C forms were acknowledged by his office, that they were misplaced and that they were not enclosed along with the assessment file for 2006-07. Even thereafter, no efforts were taken. It is only after the case has been filed that CTO I sent for a record assistant who allegedly searched and found the three C forms, filed by the petitioner, in the E1 and E2 issue register. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the officers, the files, and on an analysis of the events at the time of transfer of the files from Bhongir office to Vengalaraonagar office at the time of assessment by CTO II and after filing all the writ petitions, have left us surprised. We are shocked to know that officers who exercise quasi-judicial powers, and are supposed to protect the revenue interests of the State, can act in a manner which not only causes harm to the State exchequer but also to the assessees. The petitioner and the respondents would like this court to believe that the petitioner submitted the C forms which were duly acknowledged after receiving the notice, dated July 10, 2009. Even at that stage, no efforts were made to find the C forms allegedly kept in E1 and E2 registers. Even though five officials verified the files at the time of transfer of assessment of the petitioner to CTO II, nothing happened. It is only after filing of the writ petition, things seemed to have moved in a direction favourable to the petitioner. After probing into the matter thoroughly, and giving anxious consideration, we are convinced that there are enough material to draw an adverse inference against all those officials in the offices of CTO I and CTO II. It is only after filing of the writ petition, things seemed to have moved in a direction favourable to the petitioner. After probing into the matter thoroughly, and giving anxious consideration, we are convinced that there are enough material to draw an adverse inference against all those officials in the offices of CTO I and CTO II. We, however, hasten to add that these are matters for enquiry by the appropriate competent authority. As we are of the view that a thorough enquiry should be conducted, we refrain from making further observations which may tend to prejudice the enquiry. We also observe that nothing precludes the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes or the Government of Andhra Pradesh to transfer these officials who acted in a manner subverting public interest. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India [1998] 1 SCC 226; AIR 1998 SC 889 , the Supreme Court quoted with approval the seven principles of public life from Lord Nolan's Committee Report on "Standards in Public Life". "Selflessness Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. Integrity Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties. Objectivity In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. Accountability Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Openness Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. Honesty Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. Leadership Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example." The Supreme Court further observed : "55. Honesty Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. Leadership Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example." The Supreme Court further observed : "55. These principles of public life are of general application in every democracy and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 56. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. It also has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the international monetary fund and the world bank who have warned that future aid to underdeveloped countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing corruption has led to investigative journalism which is of value to a free society. The need to highlight corruption in public life through the medium of public interest litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India but is not unknown in other countries. ..." Of late, the atmosphere is thick everywhere with talk of large scale corruption in public offices. This is a bane of democracy. No country can survive for long if the public officeholders (who are negligible in number in comparison with the population) become corrupt. Rampant corruption may lead to serious consequences. We are not saying this with reference to this case only. This is a bane of democracy. No country can survive for long if the public officeholders (who are negligible in number in comparison with the population) become corrupt. Rampant corruption may lead to serious consequences. We are not saying this with reference to this case only. But when the court is concerned with a case of this nature, not dealing with it firmly is not proper. Therefore, we summoned all the files and examined them thoroughly. The original C forms which are allegedly now traced due to the search made by the record assistant (Junior Assistant) have also been compiled as a file being A/31/2010 of the office of CTO II. On verification, we are convinced that even to a naked eye, the signature of the Director in the C form does not tally with one another. We have our own doubts about the C forms. This also requires a thorough enquiry. In the result, for the above reasons, we issue the following directions, pending further orders : (a) The Secretary to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the concerned Additional/Joint/Deputy Commissioner incharge of administration in the office of the Commissioner shall conduct a thorough enquiry within two months keeping in view various observations made hereinabove. (b) If such preliminary enquiry reveals that the CTO I and CTO II and/or other officials acted in a way unbecoming of public servants, necessary departmental enquiry shall be initiated and appropriately commensurate punishment imposed on all those guilty of the charges. (c) Pending enquiry, it shall be open to the competent authority to suspend and/or transfer all the officials concerned against whom enquiry is contemplated. (d) The Commissioner shall also evolve a foolproof workable system of receiving appropriate forms, declarations and certificates to be filed by the assessees for claiming concessional rate of taxes and/or tax exemption on any of the sales/purchase turnovers under the VAT Act. (e) These matters shall be listed after a period of two months to enable the Commissioner to personally file an appropriate report by way of a sworn affidavit before this court for considering the matter further.