Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in his TIN 33301464772/2012-13 dated 07.05.2014 and to quash the same with a direction to the first respondent to issue C Forms for the goods so purchased as per the certificate of registration in Form-A granted under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. 2. The petitioner, by a letter dated 10.04.2014, requested 'C' Forms for the period prior to October 2012, for which, the petitioner furnished the details, which were verified and the petitioner was informed that the items manufactured by them namely, Food items and Fried Chicken, do not come under the purview of Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and are not eligible to be purchased against Form-C, hence, the request of the dealer/petitioner was rejected, as against which, the dealer filed a representation before the Joint Commissioner, on 24.04.2014 and the Joint Commissioner/second respondent, instead of considering the application by himself, once again forwarded the petitioner's representation to the first respondent along with his letter dated 30.04.2014 with a direction to consider the petitioner's contention. The first respondent once again by impugned proceedings dated 07.05.2014, has rejected the petitioner's contention, not fully, but partially. But, on perusal of the impugned order, in the last paragraph of the impugned order, it is not very clear as to whether the C Forms will be issued for all items except item Nos.1, 12 and 13 or whether C Forms will be issued for item Nos.1, 12 and 13 and rejected for all other items. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent failed to consider the peculiar nature of the business of the petitioner, considering the goods purchased which are used in the process of preparation of food items which are sold and tax collected and remitted to the Government. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent failed to consider the peculiar nature of the business of the petitioner, considering the goods purchased which are used in the process of preparation of food items which are sold and tax collected and remitted to the Government. Further, it is submitted that when the petitioner approached the Joint Commissioner, namely, the second respondent, by way of representation dated 24.04.2014, the Joint Commissioner, instead of considering the petitioner's case after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, once again sent the matter to the first respondent along with a communication dated 30.04.2014, wherein the merits of the petitioner's contention were not considered and his representation was merely forwarded for sending reply. 4. It is submitted that since already the first respondent had taken a decision earlier on 10.04.2014, the second respondent ought not to have forwarded the petitioner's representation once again to the first respondent. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur vs. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., wherein in para 27, the Honourable Supreme Court has quoted with the approval decision of the Bombay High Court in Bown Press v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1977) 39 STC 367 (Bom), wherein, it was held that when an application by a registered dealer for recognition under Section 25 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, is made, the Sales Tax Officer has to determine whether the dealer is entitled to get the certificate of recognition. Further, it is pointed out that it is a quasi-judicial enquiry and if the decision of the Officer is incorrect, it can be revised by the appropriate officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the first respondent is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above submissions. 6. The issue is as to whether the goods purchased by the petitioner for carrying on its business activities, are eligible for issuance of C Forms and whether it has to be appreciated by the authority concerned by examining the nature of goods purchased. 7. 5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above submissions. 6. The issue is as to whether the goods purchased by the petitioner for carrying on its business activities, are eligible for issuance of C Forms and whether it has to be appreciated by the authority concerned by examining the nature of goods purchased. 7. The first respondent would state that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Food items and Fried Chicken, the items purchased do not come within the purview of Section 8(3)(b) of the Act. However, such a decision was taken without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the second respondent on 16.04.2014 by setting out all the facts. But, the second respondent, instead of considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, forwarded the same to the first respondent, which should not have been done. It is clearly an abdication of power vested with the statutory authority as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in decision cited supra that all these matters are quasi judicial and if an officer has rendered incorrect findings, then the same could be revised by the appropriate authority. The second respondent, having sufficient jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the first respondent, ought not to have simply forwarded the matter to the first respondent, who has already rejected the petitioner's request. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the manner in which the application has been dealt with, is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall take into consideration the representation made by the petitioner dated 16.04.2014 and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and after conducting due enquiry, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. It is open to the petitioner to canvass all the points. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions.