JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel represents the Revenue. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, "the AGST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the CST Act") with the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit C, Guwahati. The petitioner deals in life saving drugs and makes supply to the distributors located in different north eastern States. 2. This case pertains to the assessment year 2000-01, for which exemption benefits were given to the assessee by accepting the C forms submitted by the assessee furnished by the registered dealers to whom supplies were made and the assessment was completed on June 5, 2002. 3. The impugned proceeding was initiated through a show-cause notice dated January 1, 2003 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes in purported exercises of powers under section 18(1) of the AGST Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why 6 (six) numbers of C forms earlier accepted by the assessing authority should not be rejected, because of the irregularities noticed in those C forms. Accordingly the dealer was asked to show cause as to why the sales covered by the defective C forms should not be treated as sales made to unregistered dealers and why reassessment should not now be made, for the assessment year in question. 4. The petitioner belatedly responded to the show-cause notice through his reply dated June 7, 2003 in which they assured that fresh C forms from the purchasing dealers will be collected and will be furnished to the assessing authority within 30 days. 5. But since the petitioner failed to furnish fresh C forms, as assured by them in their reply, the Superintendent of Taxes by exercising powers under section 17(4) of the AGST Act read with section 9(2) of the CST Act, made fresh assessment by rejecting the six C forms mentioned in the show-cause notice and disallowed the claims by declaring that the assessee is liable to pay tax under section 8(1) of the AGST Act and also under the CST Act. A Bakijai proceeding for recovery of the assessed tax was thereafter initiated by the certificate officer, under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. 6. Mr. A Bakijai proceeding for recovery of the assessed tax was thereafter initiated by the certificate officer, under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. 6. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel, refers to the circular dated July 2, 2003 of the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland, to show that C forms issued prior to June 11, 2001 by the Nagaland based purchasing dealer to the principal dealer of another State are valid and accordingly the tax exemption sought on the basis of those three C forms, should not have been disallowed in the reassessment exercise. As regards the discrepancy in the C form of M/s. Das Medical in which the registration number of the purchasing dealer was not mentioned, Mr. Agarwal points out that subsequently a certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Taxes mentioning the registration number of M/s. Das Medical. On the defect in the C form furnished by M/s. Hills Medical, Aizawl, which was pre-dated, the petitioner contends that subsequently fresh C form was obtained to replace the defective C form. For the 6th C form, mentioned in the show-cause notice, which was considered defective because the form was left blank, Mr. Agarwal contends that the requisite details of sale were mentioned on the duplicate copy of the C form. 7. By giving the above clarification, the learned counsel submits that the C forms accordingly should not have been rejected and tax exemption claimed on the basis of those six C forms should be allowed, by treating the sales to have been made to a registered dealer. 8. The learned counsel also contends that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before the impugned reassessment was made and the same could not have been made, without considering that defects in the C forms have since been rectified. 9. Questioning the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel contends that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority if they were aggrieved by the reassessment order and are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court, without exhausting the statutory remedy provided to an aggrieved assessee. 10. Mr. Dubey further submits that the assessee in spite of receiving the show-cause notice where the defects in the C forms were indicated, had failed to address the problem till the reassessment was made on July 3, 2003. 10. Mr. Dubey further submits that the assessee in spite of receiving the show-cause notice where the defects in the C forms were indicated, had failed to address the problem till the reassessment was made on July 3, 2003. The counsel points out that the petitioner failed to act with reasonable promptitude after he received the show-cause notice of January 1, 2003 and only because of the default of the petitioner and since the furnished six C forms were invalid, the transactions were considered as sale to unregistered dealers and were made assessable to tax. 11. Mr. Agarwal, in order to show justification for court's intervention with the reassessment has relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Badri Lal Hanumanprasad reported in [1979] 44 STC 479 (MP). In this case the C form accepted at the time of assessment was found to be without any date and noticing this defect, the Commissioner of Sales Tax exercised suo motu revision and held that the authority was wrong in accepting the defective C form. The Board of Revenue on appeal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect and accordingly remanded the case back to the Commissioner. On a reference, the High Court held that the Board was right in remanding the case, for giving an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the C form. 12. This court has no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. But what must be noticed in the case of Badri Lal Hanumanprasad reported in [1979] 44 STC 479 (MP) that a sou motu revision was made by the Assistant Commissioner for rejecting the earlier accepted C form and this was done without giving any opportunity to the assessee unlike in the present case, where reassessment was preceded by a show-cause notice. 13. In the other case relied upon by the petitioner, i.e., the Tirukoilur Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Madras reported in [1967] 20 STC 388 (Mad), when it was indicated by the assessing authority that the declaration in C forms were inconsistent with the Rules, the assessee obtained fresh C forms and tendered them to the assessing officer at a stage, prior to completion of the assessment. But the assessing authority took the view that he had no power to condone the delay in filing the declaration and accordingly the assessee was held liable to a higher levy of tax. In this case the Madras High Court held that the principles of natural justice would require that when something is discovered at the appellate stage which exposes the assessee to a higher tax, an opportunity must be given to the assessee to rectify the defects within the time granted for the purpose. 14. The facts in the case of Tirukoilur Oil Mills ltd. [1967] 20 STC 388 (Mad) show that the Madras High Court was considering a case where the assessing officer did not consider the corrected C forms although they were tendered before assessment was completed. But the assessee in the present case despite receipt of the show-cause notice failed to take any steps to cure the defects in the six C forms until the reassessment proceeding was finalized. Their belated response after five months of the show-cause notice was limited to an assurance to the assessing authority that fresh C form will be furnished within 30 days. But the petitioner never furnished the corrected C forms and clarification given by the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland on July 2, 2003 (annexure IV) and by the Superintendent of Taxes, Dimapur (annexure V) were not furnished to the assessing officer at any time before the impugned reassessment was made on July 3, 2003. 15. In the case in hand, although an opportunity was given to the assessee to cure the defects, they failed to avail of the opportunity and therefore they are not at par with the assessee before the Madras High Court case where the concerned C forms were rejected in exercise of sou motu revisional power, without affording any opportunity to the assessee. Similarly in the Madhya Pradesh High Court case also, the corrected C forms were tendered by the assessee before the assessment was made and that is how, the court held that the principles of natural justice were breached in the case. 16. But the assessee in the instant case was issued a show-cause notice where the specific defects in the six C forms were mentioned and they were given an opportunity to cure the defects. But they failed to avail of this opportunity. 16. But the assessee in the instant case was issued a show-cause notice where the specific defects in the six C forms were mentioned and they were given an opportunity to cure the defects. But they failed to avail of this opportunity. Therefore the Revenue cannot be faulted for the lapses of the assessee and the merit of the reassessment cannot be examined now by looking into materials, which were not made available to the assessing officer. 17. Accordingly I find no justification to interfere with the impugned order of reassessment, as it is the assessee who failed to effectively respond within reasonable time even after receipt of the show-cause notice, where the defects in the C forms were specified. 18. It must also be recorded that the petitioners had approached the writ court without exhausting the alternate remedy provided under Chapter VIII of the AGST Act and on this count also, I find enough justification to reject the writ petition. In view of the foregoing, no merit is found in this case and the same is dismissed without any order of cost.