JUDGMENT Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy has accepted notice for the respondent. 2. We have heard Sri K P Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri T Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The dispute in the present appeals relate to the assessment period April, 13 to March, 14 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical/electronic products and execution of work contracts for transmission and distribution of electricity. For certain interstate sales, for the period in question, lesser tax was charged and consequently deposited by the appellant, on the assurance that the purchaser would be furnishing Form-‘C’, which is to be obtained by the purchaser from its Assessing Officer. There is no dispute with regard to the turnover of the appellant on which the tax is to be paid nor there is any dispute with regard to the appellant having deposited the admitted tax i.e., concessional tax to which the appellant claims it would be entitled to. The only dispute is with regard to the non-submission of all the statutory Form-‘C’, on the basis of which the appellant claims payment of concessional tax. 4. Since for the relevant period i.e., April, 13 to March, 14, some Form-‘C’ had not been furnished by the appellant along with the returns, a notice was issued to the appellant on 31.1.2015 requiring him to submit his reply as to why additional tax amounting to over Rs.73 crores plus interest be not levied. The appellant was given 7 days time to submit its reply. On 3.2.2015, the appellant submitted its reply to the said notice stating the difficulties and the reasons because of which all the Form-‘C’ could not be furnished by the appellant and prayed for six months additional time to submit the balance statutory forms and also requested for being given personal hearing. By communication/endorsement dated 4.2.2015, the appellant was granted only 7 days further time to file the balance statutory forms. By communication/endorsement dated 4.2.2015, the appellant was granted only 7 days further time to file the balance statutory forms. Then by order dated 20.2.2015 passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 39(1) of the Karnataka VAT Act, the assessment was made, according to which the appellant was required to deposit tax amount of over Rs.73 crores plus interest of over Rs.16 crores, totaling to over Rs.89 crores, which was the same amount as mentioned in the notice. 5. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed Writ Petitions No.8711-8722/2015 on the ground that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity nor was given opportunity of personal hearing as prayed for and as such, according to the appellant, the order passed by the Assessing Authority was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said writ petitions were dismissed by judgment and order dated 5.3.2015. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed. 6. The questions to be decided in these appeals are as to: (a) “Whether the opportunity afforded to the appellants by notice dated 31.1.2015 and subsequent endorsement dated 4.2.2015 would amount to sufficient opportunity or not? (b) Whether the reasons given by the appellant in reply to the notice were sufficient to grant further time or not; and (c) Whether the same were considered by the Assessing Authority while passing the order/endorsement dated 4.2.2015?” 7. It is not disputed that the appellant has been paying tax to the tune of several crores regularly. It is also not disputed that the turnover disclosed by the appellant has been accepted by the respondent. 8. In response to the notice dated 31.1.2015, the appellant had submitted its reply on 3.2.2015 giving details that statutory forms which were to be produced were for valuation of over Rs.2200/-crores and were to be collected from the customers numbering over 2500, spread over 23 States in the country and the approximate number of forms which were to be verified would be over 3200. It was also mentioned in the reply that several states like Tamil Nadu, Assam, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh were still issuing manual statutory forms, for which they were taking much time. Other difficulties regarding handling of voluminous documents and dealing in process of uploading data of statutory forms were also mentioned. The request for personal hearing was also made by the appellant in its reply. Other difficulties regarding handling of voluminous documents and dealing in process of uploading data of statutory forms were also mentioned. The request for personal hearing was also made by the appellant in its reply. 9. In the endorsement/order dated 4.2.2015, all that has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer is that the statutory forms were required to be furnished within three months of filing the returns and as such, for the four tax periods (viz., April, 13 to June 13, July, 13 to September, 13, October, 13 to December, 13 and January, 14 to March, 14), 16, 13, 10 and 7 months respectively had already been availed by the appellant and as such, no further time was required to be given. However, by the said endorsement, a week’s further time was granted to the appellant. 10. A perusal of the endorsement would show that the difficulties expressed by the appellant in its reply dated 3.2.2015 had not been considered by the Assessing Authority. All that has been stated is that sufficient time has lapsed since the statutory period of 3 months had expired and yet the statutory forms had not been furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Authority also did not consider the request of the appellant for grant of personal hearing as nothing in this regard has been noted in the endorsement dated 4.2.2015. 11. In our view, grant of opportunity should not be a mere formality but should be such that can be reasonably availed. Requiring a person to do something in a short period within which time the same cannot be performed, would amount to denial of fair opportunity. Merely completing the formality of issuing notice and not considering the reasons given in the response/reply for grant of further reasonable time to furnish the documents, would not amount to giving adequate or fair opportunity to the party. While denying further time or granting an unreasonably short time, the Assessing Authority ought to have considered the difficulties expressed by the appellant in its reply, and in not having done so, we are of the opinion that the order/endorsement dated 4.2.2015 has been passed in a mechanical manner by ignoring the contents of the reply. While denying further time or granting an unreasonably short time, the Assessing Authority ought to have considered the difficulties expressed by the appellant in its reply, and in not having done so, we are of the opinion that the order/endorsement dated 4.2.2015 has been passed in a mechanical manner by ignoring the contents of the reply. As such, we are of the opinion that by not granting sufficient time to the appellant for furnishing requisite statutory forms, the appellant was denied adequate opportunity, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. We are also of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the reasons given in the reply dated 03.02.2015 were sufficient to grant further sufficient time (not merely one week), to submit the statutory forms and the Appellate Authority was not justified in passing the order/endorsement dated 4.2.2015 and consequently, the order dated 20.2.2015 imposing the tax liability on the appellant. 12. We are conscious of the fact that under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (R & T) Rules, 1957, the declaration Form-‘C’ is to be furnished within three months after the end of the period to which the declaration relates. However, proviso to the said Rule provides that if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration within the said time, the Prescribed Authority may allow further time for furnishing such declaration. The same would mean that the discretion lies with the Assessing Authority for extending the time and once the discretion is vested in an authority, it has to be exercised in a judicious and fair manner. In the present case, as we have already observed above, the Assessing Authority had not exercised its discretion in a fair manner, as the reply to the notice has not at all been considered by the Assessing Authority while issuing the endorsement/order dated 4.2.2015 13. In the case of STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS vs GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER ( 2005 (142) STC 1 ), the Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Rule 12(7) of the Rules, 1957 held that, “The object of the Rule is to ensure that the assessee is not denied a benefit which is available to it under law on a technical plea. The assessing officer is empowered to grant time. AND ANOTHER ( 2005 (142) STC 1 ), the Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Rule 12(7) of the Rules, 1957 held that, “The object of the Rule is to ensure that the assessee is not denied a benefit which is available to it under law on a technical plea. The assessing officer is empowered to grant time. That means that the provisions requiring filing of declaration forms along with the return is a directory provision and not a mandatory provision”. 14. As we have already observed, if the Assessing Authority had the power to grant further time, and reasons for granting such time had been given in the reply by the appellant, denial of the same without considering the reply and without even giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, cannot be justified in law. 15. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants on the ground that since a week’s time was granted to the appellant by issuing the endorsement dated 4.2.2015, it could not be construed that opportunity was not extended to the appellant or that there was violation of principles of natural justice. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given herein above, we are of the firm opinion that fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant to furnish the balance statutory forms as time prayed for was denied without recording reasons or considering the reply of the appellant. The same was thus in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the finding recorded by the Writ Court that a week’s opportunity was sufficient and also that the appellant had an alternate remedy of filing appeal, cannot be justified in law. The dismissal of the writ petitions was thus not warranted in the facts of the present case. 17. Having considered the case on merits and for the reasons given herein above, we allow these appeals as well as the Writ Petitions and quash the order of assessment dated 20.2.2015 passed by the Assessing Authority. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the appellant shall furnish the requisite statutory Form-‘C’ with the Assessing Authority within two months i.e., on or before 20.05.2015 and avail the benefit of concessional tax. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the appellant shall furnish the requisite statutory Form-‘C’ with the Assessing Authority within two months i.e., on or before 20.05.2015 and avail the benefit of concessional tax. The Assessing Authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and impose such tax liability as may be found leviable on the appellant on the basis of the remaining Form-‘C’ which may not be furnished by the appellant on or before 20.05.2015. The appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.