ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman - The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings dated October 15, 2008 and to direct the respondents to pass fresh order of assessment based on the letter dated January 22, 2010. The petitioner herein was visited with demand notice in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 rejecting the claim for exemption on a turnover pertaining to stock transfer. Since the declaration in forms C and F at the time of filing of the return were not available at the buyers' end, the petitioner's claim for exemption and concessional levy was rejected, thereby visited the petitioner with higher rate of tax. It is stated that in spite of the efforts taken, the petitioner could get the declaration form F only on January 12, 2010. As far as C declaration form is concerned, the petitioner is yet to receive the same. The petitioner sought for fresh assessment on the basis of the said available form F by making necessary application under section 16 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. However, the application was rejected under order dated October 15, 2008 on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the same within 90 days. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. On notice, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent produced before me a copy of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules, 1967. Rule 4 relates to procedure for making assessment. Sub-clause (c) to rule 4(iii) provides where an assessee claiming concessional rate of tax or exemption fails to furnish the necessary declaration in form C or form D, as the case may be, the dealer shall be assessed at the higher rate of tax on the turnover declared in the returns filed by them by rejecting the claim made without issue of any pre-assessment notice or show-cause notice. However, if the dealer filed declaration within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order, the assessment order stands suitably modified under section 16 of the Act to the extent of the declaration filed under form C or D, as the case may be. However, if the dealer filed declaration within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order, the assessment order stands suitably modified under section 16 of the Act to the extent of the declaration filed under form C or D, as the case may be. Citing the said provision, learned Special Government Pleader submits that the order passed by the respondent is justified, since the petitioner had not invoked the power of rectification within the time granted, a fact which is not denied by the petitioner too. Hence, learned Special Government Pleader submits that there are no merits in the writ petition. I have perused the Rules pertaining to furnishing of forms C and D as given under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules. It may be seen that in respect of claim of furnishing of forms C and D, it is no doubt true that the Central Sales Tax Rules do not provide for any time-limit, however, given the fact that the State has the authority to make its own Rules, the question is as to whether the respondent would be justified in rejecting the claim of the concessional levy/exemption on the ground of 90 days time fixed under the Act. It may be noted that the furnishing of the statutory form are not within the control of the petitioner and is dependant on the other State dealer's co-operation. If on a sufficient cause the petitioner satisfies the requirements of law, I do not find that the claim can be rejected unjustifiably merely on the score of time-limit furnished under the Act. The Full Bench decision of this High Court reported in [1982] 51 STC 381 (Mad) [FB] (State of Tamil Nadu v. Arulmurugan and Company), confirmed by the apex court, states that the belated form C would be furnished even before the appellate authority on showing good and sufficient reason for failure to furnish form C. In the above circumstances, even though the rule prescribes time-limit under the Pondicherry Central Sales Tax Rules, satisfied of the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed. It may be seen that the Rules framed are under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules and not under the Central Sales Tax Rules. It may be seen that the Rules framed are under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Rules and not under the Central Sales Tax Rules. Hence, keeping open the question as to the correctness of making such a rule, the respondent is directed to accept the form F filed by the petitioner and grant necessary relief to the petitioner subject to the satisfaction to be recorded by the assessing authority. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.