ORDER 1. The Appellate Authority, Jammu has summarily dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the order dated 26-03-2011 passed by the Assessing Authority, Commercial Taxes, Circle-G, Jammu (hereinafter called as Assessing Authority) under section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as Act) on the grounds that the appellant has failed to produce the requisite forms. Production of Statutory Forms-"C" is Sin-qu-non for claiming exemption of CST Act. The appellant was declined to give exemption under SRO 24 of 2004 [Refer 2004 (2) JKS JK-223]. 2. To put in brief the facts of the case are that the appellant is an SSI Unit, duly registered with the Directorate of Industries for the manufacture and sale of `pesticides'. It is also registered with the Sales Tax Department both under the J&K VAT Act 2005 and under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. That the pesticides, during the year under consideration, as per SRO 131 dated 28.04.2005 [Refer 2005 (3) JKS JK-397], were covered by entry No. 22 of Schedule-C and thus were liable to tax @ 4%. That the appellant filed its separate returns under J&K VAT Act 2005 and under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 on the below mentioned dates claiming remission from the payment of VAT under the J&K VAT Act in the returns filed under the J&K VAT Act and exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax Act. S. No. Period Date of filing of quarterly return. i) 01.04.07 to 30.06.07 28.07.2007 ii) 01.07.07 to 30.09.07 26.10.2007 iii) 01.10.07 to 31.12.07 29.01.2008 iv) 01.01.08 to 31.03.08 30.04.2008 3. That under the J&K VAT Act, the appellant was entitled to remission of tax as per SRO-91 dated 06.03.2006 [Refer 2006 (4) JKS JK-435] and SRO-176 dated 31.05.2006 [Refer 2010 (12) JKS JK-78]. The assessing authority did not accept the returns filed under the VAT Act therefore the Ld. Assessing Authority issued notice dated 24-07-2010 under Section 39 of the VAT Act for audit assessment for the year 2007-2008. The returns filed after verification of accounts were accepted and remission claimed in the return under the VAT Act was allowed. 4. The assessing authority did not accept the returns filed under the VAT Act therefore the Ld. Assessing Authority issued notice dated 24-07-2010 under Section 39 of the VAT Act for audit assessment for the year 2007-2008. The returns filed after verification of accounts were accepted and remission claimed in the return under the VAT Act was allowed. 4. i) That under the Central Sales Tax Act, the appellant had also filed the quarterly returns as above submitted on the dates mentioned above in Para 1 in which exemption from the payment of Central Sales Tax under SRO -24 of 2004 [Refer 2004 (2) JKS JK-223] was claimed. ii) The Ld. CTO without issuing any notice for raising assessment under section 9(2) of the CST Act vide order dated 02.11.2010 assessed the appellant under Section 9(2) of the CST Act. In the said assessment order, the Ld. CTO accepted the exemption of the interstate sales which were supported by C-Forms but as regards sale of Rs.89,10,176/- as these sales were not supported by `C' Forms the Ld. CTO denied the exemption on these sales and imposed tax @ 10% and further demanded interest of Rs. 7,12,815/-. 5. That against the above order of assessment u/s 9(2) of the CST Act dated 02-11-2010, an appeal was filed before the Ld. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Jammu on various grounds mentioned by the Ld. Appellate Authority in the appellate order. The appellant before the appellate authority also produced additional C-Forms for Rs. 4,19,328/-. 6. The Ld. Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and has confirmed the imposition of tax @ 10% on sales of Rs. 89,10,176/- without even not allowing benefit of `C' Forms produced before him. He has also not accepted the submission of the appellant that interest of Rs. 7,12,815/- has wrongly been charged. 7. That the appellant has filed in appeal before this Tribunal against both the orders of the CTO and of the Ld Appellate Authority. The grounds taken in the course of hearing are summarized as under:- (i) That admittedly in this case, the assessment was required to be made by following the provisions as contained in Section 39 of the VAT Act as it is so provided by section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956. The grounds taken in the course of hearing are summarized as under:- (i) That admittedly in this case, the assessment was required to be made by following the provisions as contained in Section 39 of the VAT Act as it is so provided by section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956. The appellant submits that a perusal of section 39 of the VAT Act shall show that under section 39 of the VAT Act, the assessment has to be made relating to tax period on Quarterly basis and not on annual basis and as in this case assessment has been made on yearly basis, the assessment is against the provisions contained in Section 39 of the VAT Act, hence the order of assessment is liable to be quashed. (ii) That assessment order passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is also without jurisdiction as admittedly no notice for raising assessment u/s 9(2) of the CST Act before raising assessment under Section 9(2) has been issued. (iii) That perusal of SRO 24 of 2004 relating to exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act shall show, that SRO 24 does not provide to support the interstate sales by C-Forms for claiming exemption. The appellant submits that as condition of supporting the interstate sales by C-Forms is not contained in SRO 24, both the Ld. CTO and the Ld. Appellate Authority have erred in denying exemption to the appellant. (iv) That assuming but not admitting that it is necessary for allowing exemption under SRO 24 of 2004 that C Forms be produced, even then, it is submitted that as admittedly the Commissioner of Sales Tax J&K had issued a clarification that for industries claiming exemption under SRO-24 it shall not be necessary to support the sales with `C' Forms both Ld. CTO as well as Ld. the Appellate Authority, have erred in not accepting following the binding clarification of the Commissioner sales tax and denying exemption on sales of Rs. 89,10,176/-. (v) That the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in not allowing exemption on sales of Rs. 4,19,328/- when admittedly `C' Forms against these sales were produced before him. (vii) That without prejudice to grounds (i) to (v) it is submitted, that in any case, the Ld. 89,10,176/-. (v) That the Ld. Appellate Authority has erred in not allowing exemption on sales of Rs. 4,19,328/- when admittedly `C' Forms against these sales were produced before him. (vii) That without prejudice to grounds (i) to (v) it is submitted, that in any case, the Ld. Assessing Authority has erred in imposing tax @ 10%, as, as per Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act if C-Forms are not produced only local rate of Tax, which at that time was 4%, could be applied, thus excess demand of tax has been created. (viii) That the demand of interest is not justified and in any case it is excessive. 8. The Ld. Counsel for respondents Mr. Amit Gupta has pleaded that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority are legal and passed in consonance with law which do not call any interference. 9. (viii) That the demand of interest is not justified and in any case it is excessive. 8. The Ld. Counsel for respondents Mr. Amit Gupta has pleaded that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority are legal and passed in consonance with law which do not call any interference. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for appellant, I reproduce here Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act:- Section 9(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 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 (interest or penalty) payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or (interest 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 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. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Kerala v. P P Joseph & Co reported in 25-STC 483 (1970) and I reproduce here the relevant para "By Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the procedural law prescribed by GST law of the state applies in the matter of assessment/ re-assessment, collection and enforcement and payment under CST Act" While applying ratio of this judgment procedure provided under J&K VAT Act is applicable for raising assessment under the CST Act. 10. A perusal of J&K VAT Act, show that as per Section 35 scruting of returns is to be made relating to "Tax period". The tax period has been identified by Rule 28(1) of the J&K VAT Rules 2005 as "Quarter". The Quarter as per Rule 2(x) means unit of three months of the year. 11. The Ld. Assessing Authority has not followed due procedure of law envisaged under J&K VAT Act and Rules. The demand created by the Assessing Authority was hit by limitation for Ist three quarters barred under section 41 of J&K VAT Act, 2005. The Section 41 of J&K VAT Act prior to J&K Vat (Amendment) Act dated 26-12-2008 w.e.f. 01-04-2008 is reproduced as under:- "No assessment under section 37, 38, 39 and 40 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the tax period to which the assessment relates and every return filed shall be deemed to have been accepted if not taken up for scrutiny within three years from the due date prescribed for its filling" 12. It becomes clear, where the demand is created after passing the order, which is barred by limitation is illegal and without jurisdiction liable to be quashed. 13. The assessment has been raised not for the "Tax period" but for full year, the order passed is clearly against the provisions contained in the J&K VAT Act and therefore order passed is not sustainable in law. 14. In Gindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Orissa (2012) 54 VST Page 1, the Orissa High Court has also held as under:- "Law is well settled that when the Statute requires certain things to be done in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The settled legal position is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusion alteris". 15. An other case titled Simons India Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (1986) 62 STC 40 (Bombay) has observed that assessment proceedings against registered dealer commence when he files the returns. 16. Hence the law which was in operation at the time when the appellant filed its return shall apply to the appellant. The order passed by the Assessing Authority was also irregular is in fact invalid in Law as Assessing Authority has not followed due procedure of law, if assessment has to be raised, it is mandatory that notice in VAT 17 be issued, this becomes clear as the word `shall" for issuance of notice is mentioned in Rule 35 of the VAT Rules. The CTO/ Assessing Authority was not inclined to accept the returns filed under the CST Act, the procedure prescribed in Rule 35 of VAT Rules was required to be followed. Notice in Form 17 VAT for raising assessment under the CST Act i.e. for assessment under section 9(2) of the CST Act was required to be issued as it was mandate by law. But here no notice in From VAT 17 for raising assessment under the CST Act admittedly has been issued. 17. In CIT v. Pawan Gupta and others (2009) 318 ITR 322, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held:- "Where the Assessment officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed assessment filed by the assesse, issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is a prerequisite for framing due block assessment order under chapter XIV-B of the Act. If an assessment order is passed in such a situation without complying with section 143(2), it would be invalid and not be merely irregular." 18. Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is also relevant here as this section is para materia with Rule 35 of the Vat Rules. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the assessment made without notice is invalid. 19. The mandatory provisions cannot be waived and as here the Ld. CTO/ Assessing Authority has not accepted the returns filed under CST Act it was mandatory that specific notice in Form VAT 17 for raising assessment under section 9(2) of the CST Act should have been issued. 19. The mandatory provisions cannot be waived and as here the Ld. CTO/ Assessing Authority has not accepted the returns filed under CST Act it was mandatory that specific notice in Form VAT 17 for raising assessment under section 9(2) of the CST Act should have been issued. But as admittedly no such notice has not been issued the assessment raised is invalid in law. 20. A perusal of SRO 24 granting exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax shall show that it does not contain any condition that for exemption it is necessary that C-Forms be produced. Taking into consideration this position even the ld. Commissioner of Sales Tax clarified that industrial units for claiming exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax are not required to produce C-Forms. This clarification was binding upon the Assessing as well as Appellate Authorities. The said clarification was called through Ld. Standing Counsel but he failed to produce the same. Mr. Subash Dutt Advocate has stated at bar that the clarification was issued but he too could not produce. 21. The Ld. Appellate Authority also has not justified in not giving the benefit of C Forms produced before him for Rs. 4,19,328 and allowing exemption on these sales. The other sales has been effected to Govt. agencies. 22. Further the Assessing Authority has also erred in law in not being justified in imposing tax @ 10% as a perusal of Section 8(2) of CST Act shall show that it reads as under:- "The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-state trade or Commercial not falling within sub section (1) shall be at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate state under the sales tax law of that state" 23. While sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the CST Act reads as under:- "Every dealer, who in the course of interstate trade or Commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be two percent (2%) of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate state under the Sales Tax law of that State, which ever is lower. Provided that the central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section". 24. Even if it may be presumed that the sales are not supported by "C" Forms such sales can be made liable to tax only at the rate which is applicable to State of J&K during the year under consideration and on pesticides it was 4%. The Assessing Authority is not been justified in law while imposing tax @ 10% instead of 4% for sales not supported by "C" Forms. Hence the order passed cannot be sustained under law. 25. That the Ld. Assessing Authority has also erred in law while charging interest under section 9(2) of the CST Act. The order of Assessing Authority is very brief and does not specify why the interest under section 51(4) has been charged. Merely says that the amount of tax assessed Rs. 8,91,081 remains unpaid till date for which dealer is liable to pay interest worked out to Rs. 7,12,815/- which stands recoverable. The order of charging interest has been passed on the same date when order under section 9(2) of CST Act has been passed. Under these circumstances when no notice for payment of assessed tax has been issued as the same has been issued only after 02-11-2010 when assessment order has been passed, the default mentioned by the Assessing Authority for charging interest does not exist. The order is bereft of reasoning and it does not contain any calculation how the interest of Rs 7,12,815/- has been demanded. This is not sustainable in the eyes of law and does not exist and is illegal. 26. Before, however, concluding this judgment, I would like to state here that the Ld. Assessing Authority has not fallowed the due procedure of law envisaged under the CST Act as well as VAT Act and Rules. Also the Appellate Authority has not addressed the issues involving the petition in its right prospective. Pursuant to mandate of Section 41 of J&K VAT Act the assessment for Ist three quarters were hit by limitation as Assessing Authority was under the mandate as envisaged under Rule 28 of J&K VAT Rules to assess the appellant for tax period as defined in section 2(36). Pursuant to mandate of Section 41 of J&K VAT Act the assessment for Ist three quarters were hit by limitation as Assessing Authority was under the mandate as envisaged under Rule 28 of J&K VAT Rules to assess the appellant for tax period as defined in section 2(36). The Assessing Authority has also not followed the mandatory provision of law envisaged in Rule 35 of VAT Rules; the notice in Form 17 VAT be issued before raising assessment. The Rule 35 VAT Rules is mandatory as word "shall" for issuance of notice is mentioned. The Assessing Authority has completely skipped from his duty and has not followed the mandatory provisions of law which is fatal for the revenue. The Appellate Authority has also not addressed on these issues; Viewed thus, for the reasons and observations made hereinabove in this judgment, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned passed by Appellate Authority is set aside. The Assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority is quashed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and shall be consigned to records. Records, summoned, if any be returned forthwith.