ORDER K. VENKATARAMAN :- This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. R. Mahadevan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T. P. Manoharan, Special Government Pleader (P) on behalf of the respondent, the court made the following order : The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 and consequently forbearing the respondent from denying to issue the statutory C form to the petitioner. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the application for interim stay is set out hereunder : (a) The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products and the dealership was granted by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner is regularly assessed to tax and has been paying the same. The assessment orders were passed without furnishing a copy of the statement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, which formed basis of the order and against which, appeals have been filed before the appellate authority. While so, the respondent took steps to stop the supply of fuel from the Indian Oil Corporation which made the petitioner to approach this court by filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 6110 of 2009 and the same was allowed by this court on April 13, 2009; (b) In the meantime, the assessing authority has passed the assessment order dated September 15, 2009, which is now challenged before the appellate authority. Even before an order could be passed in the appeal, a call notice dated October 27, 2009 was issued calling for an objection. The petitioner sought 15 days time to reply. However, the DCTO, Registration Cell cancelled the registration of the petitioner by its order dated November 9, 2009. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this court challenging the said order in W.P. No. 23940 of 2009. Considering the fact that the petitioner has paid excess amount for the assessment year, the said writ petition was allowed by this court on November 23, 2009 setting aside the proceedings of the respondent dated November 9, 2009. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this court challenging the said order in W.P. No. 23940 of 2009. Considering the fact that the petitioner has paid excess amount for the assessment year, the said writ petition was allowed by this court on November 23, 2009 setting aside the proceedings of the respondent dated November 9, 2009. Again an order was passed cancelling the registration of the petitioner and the same was challenged in the writ petition in W.P. No. 5382 of 2010 and the same was admitted by this court and interim stay has been granted; and (c) The petitioner approached the respondent for issuance of C form. But, the respondent stopped issuing the same. Further, the respondent passed the impugned order dated March 16, 2010 alleging arrears of tax and proposed to refuse the issuance of statutory form. The petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent for personal hearing and thus, C form licence was refused to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, challenging the order of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 has come up with the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the respondent is bound to issue C form licence to the petitioner and the same cannot be denied by the respondent without any justification. Even assuming that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax and even assuming that the petitioner has misused C form licence, the same cannot stand in the way of the respondent issuing C form licence to the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawn my attention to the judgment of this court in City Tower Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2003] 131 STC 317 (Mad). On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the impugned proceedings are only a show cause and that the petitioner has to reply to the show-cause notice. Only if a final order is passed, the petitioner, after preferring an appeal, could approach this court invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the judgment in State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works [2006] 145 STC 656 (SC); [2005] 11 SCC 451 and also the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ansal Papers v. State of U.P. [2009] 20 VST 727 (All). He relied on the judgment in State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works [2006] 145 STC 656 (SC); [2005] 11 SCC 451 and also the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ansal Papers v. State of U.P. [2009] 20 VST 727 (All). Further, the learned counsel for the respondent drawn my attention to section 43 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (Act 9 of 2007) and also section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That apart, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is in huge arrears of tax and also he has misused C form licence, which made the respondent to cause the impugned proceedings dated March 16, 2010. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned order of the respondent dated March 16, 2010 does not call for any interference by this court. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mahadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent. On the one hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire admitted tax due to the Department was paid by the petitioner and it is borne out by the additional typed set filed by the petitioner. However, it is denied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the amount due by the petitioner is set out in the impugned order dated March 16, 2010. Thus, there is a disputed question whether the petitioner has paid the tax as alleged by him or the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that still the amount is payable by the petitioner. This question can be answered when the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, after the respondent files the counter. However, for the limited purpose, whether the petitioner is entitled to get C form licence from the respondent has to be considered, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent. The impugned proceedings read that the petitioner is in arrears of taxes and penalty. Consequently, it states that the petitioner has filed the return only for 2009-10, that too belatedly, without proof of payment of tax payable thereon. The impugned proceedings read that the petitioner is in arrears of taxes and penalty. Consequently, it states that the petitioner has filed the return only for 2009-10, that too belatedly, without proof of payment of tax payable thereon. Thus, the impugned notice speaks of the non-payment of arrears of taxes and penalty for the year 2009-10 belatedly, without proof of payment of tax. The question that arises for consideration is whether the non-payment of arrears of tax and penalty would disentitle the petitioner from getting the C form licence ? On an earlier occasion, when the proprietor of the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 6110 of 2009, challenging the communication of the respondent to the Indian Oil Corporation asking them to stop supply of products on the ground that the petitioner is in arrears of tax, this court by an order dated April 13, 2009 has held that the respondent herein has no such power to stop the business of the petitioner. The respondent has power to attach the sale deposits from the properties or even the bank account of the petitioner, but however, he has no power to direct the Indian Oil Corporation to stop supply to the petitioner. Thus, the said writ petition came to be allowed on April 13, 2009. When the respondent can proceed against the petitioner for non-payment of tax or the penalty, absolutely, the respondent has no power to deny C from licence to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on section 43 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 (in short "the Act"). The said provision reads as follows : "43. Withholding issue of statutory forms and seizure of goods. - (1) Notwithstanding that any recovery proceeding initiated under this Act, the assessing officers or any other officers authorised in this regard, shall have power to withhold issue of statutory or other declaration forms to a dealer from whom any tax or penalty, interest or any other amount payable under this Act is due. (2) ..." Thus, the above referred provision makes it very clear that in any recovery proceedings initiated under that Act, the assessing officer or any other officer concerned has power to withhold the issuance of statutory or other declaration forms. However, there is no such provision under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (2) ..." Thus, the above referred provision makes it very clear that in any recovery proceedings initiated under that Act, the assessing officer or any other officer concerned has power to withhold the issuance of statutory or other declaration forms. However, there is no such provision under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, drawn my attention to section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Clause (2) of section 9 reads as under : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. - (1) ... (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or penally payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, rebates, penalties charging or payment of interest, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly : Provided that if in any State or part thereof there is no general sales tax law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf make necessary provision for all or any of the matter specified in this sub-section." However, the above referred section does not contemplate to refuse C form licence for non-payment of tax or penalty. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in my opinion, does not augur well. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in my opinion, does not augur well. When there is no prohibition, as stated already, to issue C form licence to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the tax due and penalty, the respondent cannot deny the issuance of C form licence to the petitioner. That apart, by denying C form licence, the respondent is trying to stall the entire business of the petitioner. As observed by this court in W.P. No. 6110 of 2009 dated April 13, 2009, the respondent, in such circumstances, can attach the sale proceeds from the properties or even the bank account of the petitioner. When such power is vested with the respondent, there is no rhyme or reason in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of C form licence to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, as stated already, relied upon the decision in State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar Ramesh Chandra Glass Works [2006] 145 STC 656 (SC); [2005] 11 SCC 451 for the proposition that judicial review is very very limited, if there is a challenge to the show-cause notice, under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder : "In our view, the High Court proceeded on an incorrect basis. Hence, the decision cannot stand. In any event, this court had repeatedly held that article 226 should not be permitted to be invoked in order to challenge show-cause notices unless accepting the fact in the show-cause notices to be correct, either no offence is disclosed or the show-cause notices are ex facie without jurisdiction. That could not be said as far as the eight show-cause notices in question are concerned. The High Court, therefore, should not have interfered and should have left the respondents to pursue their remedy by way of an appeal under section 9 of the Act from the order of assessment which, according to the High Court, had admittedly been passed before the writ petition had been filed by the respondent." Even in the said judgment, the honourable apex court held that show-cause notice could be challenged if ex facie it has been caused by an authority who has no jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the respondent has no jurisdiction to refuse to part with C form licence to the petitioner. Hence, the said judgment may not be of any use to the petitioner. The next judgment that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is Ansal Papers v. State of U.P. [2009] 20 VST 727 (All). By citing the said judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a passage where the Allahabad High Court relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of the apex court in Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt [1965] 55 ITR 415 (SC). Though normally show-cause notice cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that there is an unjust denial to issue C form licence to the petitioner and that too, when the respondent has no jurisdiction to do so, I am inclined to hold that though the impugned communication is a show-cause notice, this court can entertain the present writ petition. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there shall be an order of interim direction directing the respondent to issue C form licence to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, M.P. No. 2 of 2010, therefore, stands ordered. Post on June 15, 2010 for counter in both M.Ps. and writ petition.