ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred basically for three prayers, out of which for the following two prayers arguments have been canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-authorities to issue statutory Form ‘C’ to the Petitioner in respect of inter-state purchases of goods made by it by way of transit purchases under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘C.S.T. Act’) of a value of Rs.195,64,75,066.25 pertaining to financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to 1st quarter); xx xx xx (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that at the time of issuance of statutory Form ‘C’, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or it authorities cannot pre-judge and adjudicate the legality and propriety of the transactions of inter-State purchases of goods made by the Petitioner by way of transit purchases and the Respondent-State of Jharkhand has no authority under law to withhold issuance of statutory Form ‘C’.” 2. Factual Matrix: •? This petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of iron and steel for which registration has been obtained under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956, for the sake of brevity). In the certificate of registration issued to this petitioner under Section 7 of the Act, 1956, several goods have been mentioned which they can purchase at a concessional rate of tax, provided the conditions mentioned in the Central Sales Tax Act, are fulfilled. These conditions are that the goods purchased ought to be used in manufacturing of another item or for resale of the goods. In the facts of the present case, the goods which are mentioned in this certificate of registration, have been purchased for manufacturing process. •? The goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration of this petitioner under the Act, 1956, either can be purchased from the State of Jharkhand or from other States. In the facts of the present case, the goods are purchased by this petitioner from various States of the country. •? For purchase of the goods from various States of this country, again there are two methods. In the facts of the present case, the goods are purchased by this petitioner from various States of the country. •? For purchase of the goods from various States of this country, again there are two methods. One is purchase of those goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration of this petitioner, directly by the petitioner from the other States and another method is to purchase those goods through a dealer. It may happen that the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration are available either in abundance and at a cheaper price in the other States. The dealer is supposed to have more accurate knowledge about this than the petitioner and therefore sometimes it is advisable to purchase such goods through a dealer. •? In the facts of the present case, the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration of this petitioner are purchased from other States through a dealer or dealers. • ?For the purchase of those goods, specification has to be given by this petitioner to the dealers so that dealers will find out such goods from whole of the country. Thus what is conveyed by this petitioner to the dealer is to find out the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration from the other States. • ?Now, the dealer, in turn, is finding out those goods from the other States and initially he will purchase those goods from the seller of the goods situated in other States. The manufacturer of those goods will assign the goods to the transporter. Movement of the goods has started. Now, the goods are said to be in transit. At this stage, the dealer who is engaged by this petitioner will put an endorsement for assignment of the consignment to this petitioner. This is known as, in the eye of law, “sale in transit”. Such type of sale is covered under Section 3(b) of the Act, 1956. •? Once, there is a sale in transit, by the dealer of the goods which is the second sale it is covered under the scheme of Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957. Such type of sale is covered under Section 3(b) of the Act, 1956. •? Once, there is a sale in transit, by the dealer of the goods which is the second sale it is covered under the scheme of Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957. Especially, under Rule 12 (1) a declaration and the certificate referred to in Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax, Act 1956 has to be submitted for availing the benefit of exemption of tax. This form prescribed under Section 12(1) is known as Form-C with which we are concerned in this matter. Form-D is meant for Government with which we are not concerned in this case. • By way of an illustration, the transaction and movement of the goods are as under: Mr. A Manufacturer → Mr. B Dealer → Mr. C Petitioner ← ← Mr. ‘A’ is manufacturer of goods from where the goods are purchased by Mr. ‘B’. Mr. ‘B’ is dealer of the goods to whom the specifications were given by this petitioner for purchase of the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration. Mr. ‘C’ is this petitioner. This Mr. ‘C’ is giving the narration of the goods to Mr. ‘B’ so that Mr. ‘B’ can purchase those goods from anywhere in the country. Mr. ‘B’ having an expertise knowledge is now purchasing those items e.g. from the State of Orissa from the manufacturer who is Mr. ‘A’. There is no sale of goods unless the goods are coming into existence. Mr. ‘A’-manufacturer at Orissa is selling the goods after manufacturing, to Mr. ‘B’-dealer appointed by this petitioner. The goods are given to the transporter. The transporter will transport the goods to Mr. ‘B’. Now, the movement of the goods has been started. At this stage, the goods are said to be in transit. During transit of those goods, Mr. ‘B’ is putting an endorsement for assignment of this consignment for Mr. ‘C’ (who is the petitioner in this case). This endorsement is known as “sale of goods during transit”, which is covered under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For this “sale in transit”, Mr. ‘A’ will issue E1 Form. This E1 Form will move from Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’ and Mr. ‘B’ has to issue Form-C to Mr. This endorsement is known as “sale of goods during transit”, which is covered under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For this “sale in transit”, Mr. ‘A’ will issue E1 Form. This E1 Form will move from Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’ and Mr. ‘B’ has to issue Form-C to Mr. ‘A’. This is transaction no.1. Now, because of sale in transit, again, the property in goods are now transferred to Mr. ‘C’. This sale is covered by Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Exemption of tax is to be availed by this petitioner for which, looking to the scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Rules 1957, Mr. ‘C’ has to give Form- C to Mr. ‘B’. Thus, there is movement of Form-C from Mr. ‘C’ to Mr. ‘B’. Thus, Form-C is to be collected by this petitioner from the respondents which the respondents are not giving nor their e-portal is allowing to generate to this petitioner, hence, this writ petition has been preferred to get Form- C either manually or through e-portal for which programming is being done by the respondents. Unless and until, Form-C (as required under Rule 12 (1) of the Rules, 1957) is given by Mr. ‘C’ to Mr. ‘B’, the benefit of exemption of tax as prescribed under Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(4) read with Section 6(2) of the Act 1956, will not be available to this petitioner. •? For transit of the goods from the transporter appointed by Mr. ‘A’, road permit is to be given by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) to Mr. ‘A’ (manufacturer e.g. at Orissa). It further appears that while getting road permit by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) from the respondent-Government invoice details are to be supplied to the respondent-Government. Invoice means a bill issued by Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’ (Dealer). In this invoice e.g. if the sale price is mentioned as Rs.100/- and Rs.2/- is a sales tax, then, invoice will be of Rs.102/- given by Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’. This invoice has to be mentioned by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) while generating road permit through e-portal from the respondent-State and it has to be given by Mr. ‘C’ to Mr. ‘A’ (Manufacturer). •? Now, after the sale in transit by Mr. ‘B’ (Dealer) to Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’. This invoice has to be mentioned by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) while generating road permit through e-portal from the respondent-State and it has to be given by Mr. ‘C’ to Mr. ‘A’ (Manufacturer). •? Now, after the sale in transit by Mr. ‘B’ (Dealer) to Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) by way of an endorsement in favour of Mr. ‘C’ by Mr. ‘B’, for taking the benefit of exemption of tax, Form-C is to be generated by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) through e-portal of the respondent. For getting Form-C also, invoice number is to be given along with other details, which is generated by Mr. ‘B’ for Mr. ‘C’. Now, the difficulty is that being a dealer, he will add the commission e.g. Rs.102/- + Rs.3/- = Rs.105/-. Now, in the invoice given by Mr. ‘B’ to Mr. ‘C’, the amount mentioned is Rs.105/- whereas in the earlier invoice given by Mr. ‘A’ to Mr. ‘B’ it was Rs.102/-. This has created difficulty in getting Form-C through e-portal which is programmed by the State of Jharkhand and as there is a difference in the price of the invoice, Form-C is not being generated. •? There is one more difficulty in generating Form-C by Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) because the programming done by respondent-State is such that if the dealer of the goods- Mr. ‘B’ and the applicant of Form-C – Mr. ‘C’ (petitioner) are situated in the same State, Form-C cannot be generated through e-portal because the State of Jharkhand believes that both dealer and purchaser of the goods i.e., Mr. ‘B’ and Mr. ‘C’ cannot be in the same State for getting the benefit of exemption of tax under Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(4) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. •? The seller and purchaser of the goods if are in the same State, then it is always intra-State sale. This concept has also created a problem for the petitioner in getting Form-C. This concept has been mentioned in para-8 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent- State. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the petitioner: •? •? The seller and purchaser of the goods if are in the same State, then it is always intra-State sale. This concept has also created a problem for the petitioner in getting Form-C. This concept has been mentioned in para-8 of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent- State. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the petitioner: •? Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Form-C is neither given manually nor it is being generated from e-portal of the respondent which is required under Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 1957 for getting benefit of exemption of tax under Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(4) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and for the current year 2017-18 also up to the first quarter. In fact, while issuing Form-C manually or through e-portal, the respondents have no power, jurisdiction and authority to verify whether the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration are purchased as an inter state sale or by sale in transit or not, as per Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The denial for issuance of Form-C is arbitrary. Once, there is arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, it is always violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because in few cases Form-C is given manually and in rest of the cases, without any justifiable reasons Form-C is being denied. • ?Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the only reason given in the counter-affidavit is that the goods are being purchased through a dealer who is also situated within the State of Jharkhand. This cannot be a reason for not granting Form-C because the goods which are mentioned in certificate of registration can be purchased directly by the petitioner outside the State of Jharkhand or can be purchased through a dealer. In the facts of the present case, they are purchased through a dealer. The dealer has purchased the goods from different States of this country and after purchasing those goods, during the movement of the goods in transit “an endorsement” is made by the dealer in favour of this petitioner. In the facts of the present case, they are purchased through a dealer. The dealer has purchased the goods from different States of this country and after purchasing those goods, during the movement of the goods in transit “an endorsement” is made by the dealer in favour of this petitioner. Thus, the goods purchased by this petitioner, by way of “sale” is, during the movement of the goods in transit which is covered under Section 3(b) of the Act, 1956 for which the petitioner is entitled to purchase the same with exemption of tax as prescribed under Section 8 (1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 6 (2) of the Act, 1956. Under Section 8(4) a declaration and the certificate is to be given for which Rule 12(1) has been enacted under Rules, 1957 which prescribes Form-C to be given by this petitioner to the dealer. The residence of the dealer and petitioner are not sine qua non for issuance of Form-C. The residence of dealer and petitioner is not a sine qua non for getting or for grant of benefit of concessional rate of tax or exemption of tax. Once, the goods are purchased by the dealer from outside the State and during the movement of goods, if an endorsement is made by the dealer in favour of this petitioner such sale is known as “sale in transit” and hence this petitioner is entitled to purchase the goods with exemption of tax for which Form-C has to be issued by the respondent and while issuing Form-C the respondent cannot verify the fine nicety of the transaction because that can be done by the Assessing Officer of the manufacturer of the goods in another State. That verification can also be done by the Assessing Officer of the dealer and that fact can also be verified by the Assessing Officer of this petitioner at the time of assessing annual returns filed by them. •? Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions to substantiate the aforesaid arguments about the power, jurisdiction and authority of the respondents. •? Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions to substantiate the aforesaid arguments about the power, jurisdiction and authority of the respondents. (a) (1986) 61 STC 335 (Madras) (1991) 83 STC 207 (b) (1997) 7 SCC 531 (c) (1991) 83 STC 207 (d) (2009) 19 VST 178 (Orissa) (e) (1986) 61 STC 335 (Madras) (f) (2003) 131 STC 317 (Madras) (g) (2007) 3 SCC 124 (h) (1998) 109 STC 625 (Andhra Pradesh) •? Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that Form-C is not given by the respondent-State because there is a discrepancy in the invoice. In fact, Form-C is to be generated through eportal which is programmed by the respondent-State. No reasons are being given by the computer. •? Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while generating Form-C, through e-portal of the respondent-State authority from July, 2015 onwards, the State of Jharkhand has done such type of programming in their computers-e-portal, that unless and until, the road permit details are given, Form-C will not be generated. Now, the road permit which is given by this petitioner to the manufacturer of the goods in another State reflects the lesser sale price because the manufacturer has issued an invoice to the dealer at Rs.102/- as per example given hereinabove. In the said road permit, the price will be lesser. Now, the dealer will add their own profit or commission and will issue another invoice to this petitioner for a higher sale price. Thus, there will not be any matching of the details of invoices because of the details of the road permit which is to be given while generating Form-C through e-portal. Thus, the dealer has purchased the goods at Rs.102/- and thereafter, he will sell the goods at Rs.105/- to this petitioner. Thus, there will always be a difference of sale price, whenever the goods are purchased through the dealer. Thus, the first invoice is issued by the manufacturer to the dealer with a lessor price and another invoice is issued by the dealer to this petitioner, which is issued after addition of the commission. Thus, in a road permit given by this petitioner to the original manufacturer in another State, lessor price will be mentioned as per first invoice, whereas while getting Form-C now, details of another invoice are to be given. Thus, in a road permit given by this petitioner to the original manufacturer in another State, lessor price will be mentioned as per first invoice, whereas while getting Form-C now, details of another invoice are to be given. Another invoice is issued by the dealer to the petitioner, by adding the commission or profit and therefore, there will be price difference. The eportal developed by the respondent-State is such that if there is any price difference then, Form-C will not be generated. This difficulty has been created by wrong programming into the computer by the respondent-State authority without envisaging the practical sale and purchase of the goods through the dealer and without envisaging the sale during transit of the goods under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and hence, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that despite the discrepancy in the sale price which are in the two invoices and despite the discrepancy in the road permit and the details supplied for generating Form-C, specially for the price of the goods, Form-C has to be issued by the respondent either through e-portal or manually. • It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that unnecessarily the respondents are entering into the question whether the sale is under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This type of verification at the stage of issuing Form-C is premature in nature. Whether the sale is under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, can be verified by the Assessing Officer of the manufacturer State or it can also be verified by the Assessing Officer of the dealer or it can be further verified by the Assessing Officer of the petitioner when they are assessing the annual returns of manufacturer or of the dealer or of this petitioner. At the time of issuance of Form-C such type of over anxiety of the respondent-State officers is uncalled for and unwarranted and under the law it is not permissible as has been held by the aforesaid decisions. • ?Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is a misconception on the part of the respondents that as the dealer of the goods and purchaser of the goods are situated in the same State, Form-C cannot be generated. • ?Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is a misconception on the part of the respondents that as the dealer of the goods and purchaser of the goods are situated in the same State, Form-C cannot be generated. It ought to be kept in mind that despite both are staying in the same State or in the same village, there can be an intra9 State sale during transit of the goods under Section 3(b). Sale during transit of the movement of the goods has nothing to do with the residence of the dealer and the purchaser of the goods. The dealer can purchase the goods from outside the State and during the transit or during the movement of the goods, there can be an endorsement of the transfer of the property in goods to another person who may be situated in the same State, where the dealer is staying, then also, it is a sale under Section 3(b) to be read with Section 3(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and hence, the reasons which are given in para-8 of the counter-affidavit for not issuing Form-C are no reasons in the eye of law. •? Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no sale of the goods prior to the transit of the goods. As Per Section 4, 5, 6(3) to be read with Section 18 to be read with Section 23 of the Sale of the Goods Act, 1930, whenever the specifications are given by this petitioner to the dealer of the goods, to purchase those goods, from anywhere from the country, it is not a sale at all. These details which are given of the goods to be purchased by the dealer at the highest can be said, to be an agreement to sale or at the highest it is “a sale of the future goods” which as per Section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is “an agreement to sale”. The dealer is purchasing the goods from the rest of the States from India. Sometimes, the goods are yet to be manufactured or sometimes out of several goods they are to be ascertained. As and when the goods are manufactured the same will be purchased by the dealer or out of the whole lot of already manufactured goods, the goods for the petitioner are to be ascertained. Sometimes, the goods are yet to be manufactured or sometimes out of several goods they are to be ascertained. As and when the goods are manufactured the same will be purchased by the dealer or out of the whole lot of already manufactured goods, the goods for the petitioner are to be ascertained. In both these eventualities, this petitioner is purchasing the goods from the dealer which is known as the purchase of the future goods and the present sale of future goods is known as agreement to sale under Section 6(3) of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. In the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the incidence of tax is on the sale itself and not on the agreement to sale. The actual sale takes place between the dealer and this petitioner is only upon endorsement made by the dealer of the goods in favour of this petitioner. This endorsement is made by the dealer in favour of the petitioner only after purchasing the goods by the dealer. This endorsement for sale of goods in favour of the petitioner is made by dealer only when the goods were in transit from the hands of the original manufacturer or the dealer of the goods. Thus, in no eventuality, there is a sale of goods between the petitioner and the dealer prior to sale of goods between manufacturer and dealer of the goods. • ?It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise also, nobody can pass better title then what he is having. Unless and until, the dealer has purchased the goods, he cannot put an endorsement in favour of this petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in all the Form-C which were demanded by the petitioner, endorsements have been made by the dealer of the goods only after the goods are being purchased by the dealer and during the movement of the goods in transit. It is further submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the specification of the goods which are to be purchased by the dealer from the rest part of the country for this petitioner, is not a predetermined sale of the goods. Such type of specification of the purchase of the goods is given to the dealer so that he can procure such goods from the rest part of the country. Such type of specification of the purchase of the goods is given to the dealer so that he can procure such goods from the rest part of the country. These transactions between the petitioner and the dealer can be said to be an agreement to sale or present sale of the future goods. Present sale of future goods is also an agreement to sale. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, there is a predetermined sale or pre-decided sale. Thus, neither there is a predetermined sale nor pre-decided sale between the petitioner and his dealer which is prior to the sale between the manufacturer and the dealer. Merely because the narration of the goods is given to the dealer that a particular type of goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration should be procured by the dealer it is not a sale at all, much less a predetermined sale or a contract nor it can be labelled as pre-decided contract or sale. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the respondent because they are working through e-portal and their programming is not properly done or generated, keeping in mind these types of eventualities. Machine thinks what the programming is supplied to the machine. Machine developed by the respondent-State is never using artificial intelligence. Thinking of the machine cannot be more than the thinking of the respondent-State Officers. The respondents have never developed artificial intelligence in their e-portal which thinks on their own, and hence, this petition has been preferred for getting Form-C for the years which are mentioned hereinabove. • ?Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) AIR (1961) SC 1065 (b) (1976) 3 SCC 14 (c) (1992) 84 STC 317 •? On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that agreement to sale, which is prior in point of time which cannot be followed by actual “sale” by putting an endorsement during transit of the goods. In such eventualities, the tax can be levied only upon the sale of the goods and even though, the dealer of the goods and the purchaser of the goods are staying in the same State there can be inter State sale. In such eventualities, the tax can be levied only upon the sale of the goods and even though, the dealer of the goods and the purchaser of the goods are staying in the same State there can be inter State sale. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the respondent-State while not allowing their e-portal to generate Form-C which is demanded by this petitioner. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that whenever the petitioner is purchasing the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration through a dealer from another State, the manufacturer of the goods who is situated in another State will issue an invoice which reflects the name of the purchaser of the goods of a dealer and the name of the consignee will be of this petitioner because the petitioner has already conveyed his dealer to purchase those goods whose descriptions or specifications have been given to the dealer and therefore the consignee will be the petitioner, the purchaser will be the dealer and the consigner–manufacturer-seller of the goods will be the manufacturer of the another State. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that merely because the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a consignee in the invoice generated by the manufacturer in favour of the dealer that does not mean that there is a predetermined contract of sale nor it can be presumed that there is a pre-decided contract of sale in favour of this petitioner. Thus, even if, there is name of petitioner as a consignee, there can be a pre-existing agreement to sale or “there can be present sale of future goods” between the dealer of the goods and the petitioner. Present sale of future goods as per Section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is an agreement to sale. Thus, even if, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a consignee, in invoice issued by manufacturer in favour of the dealer, there is no predetermined sale nor there is a pre-decided sale. Present sale of future goods as per Section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is an agreement to sale. Thus, even if, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a consignee, in invoice issued by manufacturer in favour of the dealer, there is no predetermined sale nor there is a pre-decided sale. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the respondent-State and without appreciating this fine nicety of the law at the stage of issuance of Form-C the respondents have shown unnecessary zeal to decide the nature of the transaction between the petitioner and the dealer which is also not permissible, as it can be done at the time of assessment of the return filed by the manufacturer, by the dealer, and by this petitioner. •? It is vehemently submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in several isolated cases and in several selected cases, arbitrarily and discriminately, manually also Form-C have been granted by the State, but, it is denied in the case of present petitioner even manually grant of Form-C. This discriminative treatment ought to be stopped forthwith by the respondent-State. 4. Argument canvassed by counsel for the respondent-State: •? Counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently submitted that there is a predetermined contract of sale and there is a pre-decided contract of sale of the goods in favour of this petitioner, hence, Form-C cannot be given to this petitioner. •? It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that the name of this petitioner has already been mentioned as consignee in the invoice issued by the manufacturer of the goods, when the manufacturer has sold the goods to the dealer. Whenever, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a consignee, it is because of predetermined contract of sale or it is a pre-decided contract of sale. Once there is a predetermined contract of sale or pre-decided contract of sale before the movement of the goods from one State to another it cannot be said to be a sale in transit and hence, such sale i.e. predetermined sale or pre-decided sale cannot be a sale in transit. Once there is a predetermined contract of sale or pre-decided contract of sale before the movement of the goods from one State to another it cannot be said to be a sale in transit and hence, such sale i.e. predetermined sale or pre-decided sale cannot be a sale in transit. Such sale is not covered by Section 3(b) of the Sales of Goods Act, 1956 and hence no benefit can be given to this petitioner for a concessional rate of tax as mentioned in Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(4) to be read with Section 6(2) and hence, no question whatsoever arises for grant of Form-C under Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 1957. •? It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that the first sale between the manufacturer and the dealer of the goods is covered by Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The so called second sale of the goods between the dealer and the petitioner is not during the transit of goods and hence, Form-C cannot be given to this petitioner either through e-portal or manually. •? Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has relied on para-13 of the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 2 SCC 326 . It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that the dealer of the goods who has sold the goods to the petitioner and the petitioner both are staying in the same State, i.e. the State of Jharkhand and hence, also there cannot be inter State sale between the dealer of the goods and the purchaser of the goods when they are staying or when their registered office is situated in the same State. This contention is mentioned in paras 8 & 12 of the counter affidavit in detail which is also one of the reasons for denial of Form-C to the petitioner. • ?Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that as stated in para-9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the petitioner has failed to produce the books of account and has sought for time. This is also one of the reasons for denial of Form-C to the petitioner. 5. • ?Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that as stated in para-9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State, the petitioner has failed to produce the books of account and has sought for time. This is also one of the reasons for denial of Form-C to the petitioner. 5. Reasons: (i) In this writ petition the main issue raised by the petitioner is the denial of Form-C by the respondent-State. The importance of grant of Form-C is to avail exemption of tax as prescribed under Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Section 8(4) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act to be read with Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. (ii) For ready reference Section 6(2), 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 read as under:- “6(2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under subsection (1) [are true and that no inter-State sale has been effected, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3),] be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. 8(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State 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 three per cent 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, whichever is lower: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this subsection. 8 (3) [The goods referred to in sub-section (1),] (b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing or goods for sale or [in the tele-communications net-work or] in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale; (d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c). 8(4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority: Provided that the declaration is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit.] 12(1) The declaration and the certificate referred to in sub-section (4) of section 8 shall be in Forms C and D respectively: [Provided that Form C in force before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) (Amendment) Rules, 1974, or before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) (Amendment) Rules, 1976, may also be used upto the 31st December, [1980] with suitable modifications:]] [Provided further that a single declaration may cover all transactions of sale, which take place in a quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers: Provided also that where, in the case of any transaction of sale, the delivery of goods is spread over to different quarters in a financial year or of different financial years, it shall be necessary to furnish a separate declaration or certificate in respect of goods delivered in each quarter of a financial year.]” (emphasis supplied) (iii) Much litigation has been generated from denial of grant of Form-C, Form-F etc. which are referred to hereinabove. This case is no exception to such type of denial of grant of Form-C by the respondent-State. Looking to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules, very limited is the scope for denial of grant of Form-C to the assessees like this petitioner for the purchase of the goods, which are mentioned, in the certificate of the registration, especially, when such goods are being purchased, either directly or through dealer, from the other States of India. (iv) In the facts of the present case, this petitioner, who is engaged in the manufacturing activity of iron and steel, is a registered dealer within the State of Jharkhand and has also been issued a certificate of registration (under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956). Varieties of goods have been mentioned in the certificate of registration. (iv) In the facts of the present case, this petitioner, who is engaged in the manufacturing activity of iron and steel, is a registered dealer within the State of Jharkhand and has also been issued a certificate of registration (under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956). Varieties of goods have been mentioned in the certificate of registration. These goods can be purchased by this petitioner from other States also either directly or through a dealer. If these goods are to be purchased through a dealer, necessary specifications have to be given by this petitioner of the goods to be purchased by the dealer from any other States of India. Narration of goods given to the dealer or the description of the goods given to the dealer for the purchase from rest of the States of India is not a “contract of sale” at all between this petitioner and the dealer nor it can be labelled as “an agreement to sale” between the present petitioner and the dealer. This type of narration has to be given of the goods to be purchased by the dealer so that accurately the dealer can purchase those goods from rest of the States of the country. The respondent-State authorities have treated this information given by the petitioner to the dealer as a sale itself which is an error apparent on the face of the record. For this purpose grant of Form-C has been denied. This cannot be a reason for the State for denial of Form-C to this petitioner. There is a conceptual error committed by the respondent-State which needs to be clarified. (v) The goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration is required to be purchased by the dealer. Looking to the facts of the present case, this petitioner has engaged several dealers to purchase varieties of goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration from different parts of the country. Selection of the dealer depends upon the nature of the goods. Nonetheless, the fact remains that petitioner is not purchasing the goods directly from the other states, but, this petitioner is purchasing the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration through a dealer from other States. It may happen that sometimes the goods which are to be purchased by the dealer may not be in existence. Nonetheless, the fact remains that petitioner is not purchasing the goods directly from the other states, but, this petitioner is purchasing the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration through a dealer from other States. It may happen that sometimes the goods which are to be purchased by the dealer may not be in existence. Sometimes it may happen that the goods which are to be purchased through dealer is/are yet to be ascertained. (vi) Looking to the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, it ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-State that there is no predetermined contract of sale between the petitioner and the dealer, prior to the purchase of the goods by the dealer from the manufactures who are situated in other States. There is no contract of sale between this petitioner and the dealer, before the goods are being purchased by the dealer from the manufacturer who are situated in the other States. (vii) Even if, there is an agreement to sale of the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration between this petitioner and the dealer, the incident of tax is a sale and not an agreement to sale. Thus, even if there is an agreement to sale between the petitioner and the dealer prior to the purchase of the goods by the dealer from the manufacturer who are situated in other States of the country and if the property in the goods are being transferred by the dealer to the petitioner after purchase of the goods through transit of those goods, such type of transaction is covered by Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondent-State has not properly appreciated the difference between sale and agreement to sale and therefore, they are denying the grant of Form-C to this petitioner which is not permissible in the eye of law. (viii) There is one more reason for grant of Form-C to the petitioner. Whatever is conveyed by this petitioner to the dealer for the purchase of the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration is sometimes yet to be manufactured and therefore even if respondent-State is treating such type of understanding between the petitioner and dealer as “sale”, it will be present sale of the future goods. Whatever is conveyed by this petitioner to the dealer for the purchase of the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration is sometimes yet to be manufactured and therefore even if respondent-State is treating such type of understanding between the petitioner and dealer as “sale”, it will be present sale of the future goods. It ought to be kept in mind that as per Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, present sale of future goods (as defined under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) is an “agreement to sale”. Thus, the narration of the goods given by this petitioner to the dealer for purchase of those goods from other States of the country is in fact not a sale at all. It is neither an agreement to sale also. Nonetheless, even if it is treated as a sale, it may be “a sale of future goods” which is known as per Section 6(2) of “an agreement to sale”. Agreement to sale is converted into sale in the facts of the present case when an endorsement is made by the dealer of the goods who has purchased those goods from the manufacturer of the other States during transit of the goods. Such type of transaction is covered under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption of tax under Section 6(1) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 and the procedure is to be followed by this petitioner which has been referred under Section 8(1) to be read with Section 8(3) to be read with Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 1957. (ix) The dealer who is purchasing the goods from the manufacturer from the other States will obtain Form EI as required under Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1957. This Form EI will be given by the manufacturer to the dealer. The dealer in turn will have to give Form-C to the manufacturer, as per Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 1957 to be read with Section 6(2). Whenever the dealer is endorsing the transfer of the property in the goods during transit of the goods in favour of this petitioner again, this petitioner has to give Form-C to the dealer. The dealer in turn will have to give Form-C to the manufacturer, as per Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 1957 to be read with Section 6(2). Whenever the dealer is endorsing the transfer of the property in the goods during transit of the goods in favour of this petitioner again, this petitioner has to give Form-C to the dealer. This is a procedure as per the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Form-C is being denied to be given to the assessee like this petitioner frequently by the State unnecessarily. Very limited is the scope for denial of grant of Form-C. Under the varieties of reasons which are not tenable at law and every now and then such type of matters are coming in different courts of this country even the matters have already been decided by different High Courts which are referred hereinbelow. In this State also this type of litigation is frequently coming to this Court and therefore, the powers of the State is required to be mentioned by this Court about grant or denial of Form-C to the registered dealers. (x) Looking to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 Form-C has to be given to the registered dealer- (a) When a person who has applied for Form-C is a registered dealer, (b) When the goods in respect of which Form-C is to be used, are included in the certificate of registration, (c) When the applicant of Form-C has paid the necessary amount for getting Form-C and produced the proof of the payment of such amount, and (d) If the registered dealer or the applicant of Form-C has followed provisions of Rule 8 of Central Sales Tax (Jharkhand) Rules, 2006. (xi) These requirements are as per the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. In fact, every power vested in the State is coupled with a duty. (xi) These requirements are as per the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. In fact, every power vested in the State is coupled with a duty. Whenever there is a duty, there is a right vested in the assessee or the applicant of Form-C. The right of this petitioner to get Form-C is, hereby, violated which has a direct nexus with the Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(g) and the denial of grant of Form-C is a violation of Article 19(1)(g) to be read with Article 19(6). There are certain does and does not for the State while granting or refusing Form-C, but, at the whims and caprice of the officers of the State, Form-C cannot be denied to the registered dealer, who wants to purchase the goods which are mentioned in the certificate of registration from the other States. Sometimes, over anxious officers of the State are falling in the track of looking at the nature of the transactions or looking to the uses of Form-C by the registered dealer which is not permissible at the stage of grant of Form-C. While issuing Form-C or even other statutory forms, there is no scope for analyzing the controversial issues. Such controversial issues should be determined and adjudicated at the time of regular assessment. The Revenue authorities should not act, in any manner whatsoever, to defeat the very purpose of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The statute provides that Form-C should be issued in a particular manner as stated in the aforesaid paragraphs. It must be strictly adhered to if the dealer fulfils the aforesaid conditions which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Form-C must be issued to the registered dealer. (xii) The officers of the respondent-State are not required to conduct an enquiry into the nature of transactions while issuing Form-C nor can they inquire as to whether the registered dealer – petitioner, needs Form-C for use in the course of inter-State trade nor the officers of the State can enquire into the fact that whether Form-C will be misused by the registered dealer or not. This type of enquiry cannot be conducted at the stage of grant of Form-C. Such type of enquiry need not be carried out at the stage of issuance of Form-C. At the time of regular assessment, the use or misuse of Form-C can be verified with the help of several documents. The officers of the State cannot pre-judge the issue about the nature of the transaction nor the officers of the respondent-State can enquire into the fact whether Form-C being demanded by the petitioner is for avoidance of payment of the tax. It is a work to be done at the time of assessment of annual returns and if any violation is found out, there are provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, under Section 10 and 10(A), which read as under: “10. It is a work to be done at the time of assessment of annual returns and if any violation is found out, there are provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, under Section 10 and 10(A), which read as under: “10. Penalties- If any person- [(a) furnishes a declaration under sub-section (2) of section 6 or sub-section (1) of section 6-A or sub-section (4) [or subsection (8)] of section 8, which he knows, or has reason to believe, to be false; or (aa) fails to get himself registered as required by section 7 or fails to comply with an order under sub-section (3-A) or with the requirement of sub-section (3-C) or sub-section (3-E) of that section;] (b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce that he is a registered dealer; or (c) not being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce that he is a registered dealer; or (d) after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in [clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d)] of subsection (3) [or sub-section (6)] of sectopm 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose; (e) has in his possession any form prescribed for the purpose of sub-section (4) [or sub-section (8)] of section 8 which has not been obtained by him or by his principal or by his agent in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder; (f) collects any amount by way of tax in contravention of the provisions contained in section 9-A,] he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues. 10-A. Imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution.- [(1)] if any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of section 10, the authority who granted to him or, as the case may be, is competent to grant to him a certificate of registration under this Act may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one and a half times [the tax which would have been levied under sub-section (2) of section 8 in respect of the sale to him, of the goods, if the sale had been a sale falling within that subsection]: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section] (2) The penalty imposed upon any dealer under sub-section (1) shall be collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of section 9- (a) in the case of an offence falling under clause (b) or clause (d) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of [sub-section (4) of section 8] in connection with the purchase of such goods; (b) in the case of an offence falling under clause(c) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods should have registered himself if the offence had not been committed.” (emphasis supplied) (xiii) In view of the aforesaid provisions, if Form-C is/are being misused, the penalty can be levied in accordance with aforesaid provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, but, at the time of grant of Form-C neither this type of enquiry is permissible nor the State can decide the nature of the transaction whether it is falling under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the inter-State sale or it is an intra-State sale and Form-C is being denied. Neither of these things can be done by the State. The State has to wait till the assessment of annual return is filed by the applicant of Form-C. (xiv) Time and again this issue has been raised in the different Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this issue has already been decided and followed by several Courts. Neither of these things can be done by the State. The State has to wait till the assessment of annual return is filed by the applicant of Form-C. (xiv) Time and again this issue has been raised in the different Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this issue has already been decided and followed by several Courts. These decisions are as under: (a) It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Another Vs. Universal Exporters & Another reported in (1997) 7 SCC 531 wherein Section 3 AA and Section 3 AAA of Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 have been referred which is para meteria with Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Provisions of Rule 12 A (5) of Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules have also been mentioned in the aforesaid decisions and ultimately it has been held in paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision as under: “5. That the Sales Tax Officer may satisfy himself that the requisition for the blank forms is genuine and reasonable does not empower him to pre-judge the issue as to whether or not the presumption under Section3-AAA can be rebutted. That is something that the assessing authority must consider only after the blank form has been issued and it has been duly filled in and submitted, along with such other proof as the dealer adduces. It is only then that the assessing authority may consider whether such proof, along with the filled in form is sufficient to rebut the presumption drawn under the provision. 6. The arrogation of the authority to reject the assessee’s application for blank forms by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the transactions concerned entered into by the assessee were by way of export of leather was improper and must be quashed. After the blank forms are issued to the assessee and duly filled up and submitted along with such proof as the assessee may adduce, it shall, of course, be open to the assessing authority to satisfy itself as to whether or not the presumption under Section 3-AAA stands rebutted.” (emphasis supplied) (xv) It has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Unitech Ltd. Vs. commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam reported in (1991) 83 STC 207 in paragraph nos. commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam reported in (1991) 83 STC 207 in paragraph nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as under: “B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J:-The petitioner is a registered dealer in Andhra Pradesh. He is engaged in executing works contracts in which he uses cement, steel, etc. He purchases cement, steel, etc., from out-State registered dealers. Central sales tax is payable on these transactions. The petitioner says that if he sends a “C” form to the selling dealer, he will be entitled to a concessional rate of tax. He says, when he applied to the authorities for supply of "C" forms, it was refused on the ground that so long as section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is not amended, “C” forms cannot be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner says that the certificate of registration issued to him, a copy of which is filed in the material papers, mentions cement, steel, bricks, wood, iron doors, corch sheet, tarbelt, iron windows, nuts and bolts, machinery, spare parts of machinery, etc., and therefore he is entitled to be supplied with “C” forms. Counsel also submits that the correct or incorrect yuse of “C” forms is not a question to be gone into at the time of supply of “C” forms, and that wherther a particular “C” form has been correctly used or not arises for consideration only at a latter stage. 2. Section 8(3)(b) so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: “(3) The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1): (b) are gods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him, or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or purchasing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. 3. 3. A reading of clause (b) shows that the goods specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods may be intended either (1) for resale by him or (2) subject to any rules made by the central Government in this behalf to be used by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. 4. In this case, the petitioner says, the goods are meant for resale. The certificate of registration also shows that the said goods are meant for resale. Learned counsel also points out-and rightly in our opinion-that after the Forty-sixth amendment to the Constitution, the goods used in executing work contracts are deemed to be sold and therefore there is a sale of the material used in execution of the works contracts. Be that as it may, as stated above, the question whether a particular ‘C’ form has been issued rightly or wrongly is not a question which is relevant at this stage. We are concerned at this stage only with the supply of “C” forms to the petitioner by the commercial tax authorities. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The authorities shall supply the requisite number of “C” forms according to the Rules, as and when applied by the petitioner. No Costs.” (emphasis supplied) (xvi) In view of the aforesaid decisions, grant of Form-C cannot be denied by pre-judging the issue of nature of transaction. Unnecessarily the respondent-State has entered into the question that as there was a pre-existing or pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods and hence, Form-C is not granted. (xvii) In the case of Chowhan Machinery Mart Vs. Unnecessarily the respondent-State has entered into the question that as there was a pre-existing or pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods and hence, Form-C is not granted. (xvii) In the case of Chowhan Machinery Mart Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in (2009) 19 VST 178 (Orissa), the Hon’ble Orissa High Court framed the following question as Issue no.1, which reads as under: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, he is entitled to get adequate number of ‘C’ Forms, as per his requirement, to purchase the goods from outside the State to avail concessional rate of tax, as provided under Section 8 of the Act read with Rule 12 of the CST (R & T) Rules and the same cannot be refused on any ground other than those stipulated in Rule 6 of the CST (Orissa) Rules?” The aforesaid issue was decided by Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Chowhan Machinery Mart Vs. State of Orissa (supra) with the observations as under: “10. Under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the CST Act read with Rule 8(4), a 10 registered dealer has a right to obtain declaration form from the prescribed authority in order to avail concession in payment of tax on inter-State transactions. Neither Section 8 of the Act nor Rule 12 imposes any restriction on supply of “C” declaration form by the notified authority to a dealer registered under the Act. Under the provisions of Section 10 of the CST Act only if a person misuses the “C” form he is liable to penalty. It is only Rule 6 of the CST (0) Rules which imposes certain restriction on supply of “C” declaration form. Under the provisions of Section 10 of the CST Act only if a person misuses the “C” form he is liable to penalty. It is only Rule 6 of the CST (0) Rules which imposes certain restriction on supply of “C” declaration form. A coherent reading of Section 8 of the Act Rule 12 of the CST (R&T) Rules and Rule 6 of the CST (0) Rules, makes it amply clear that once a dealer satisfies the conditions that he is a registered dealer authorized to purchase goods mentioned in the certificate of registration and charges for obtaining “C” forms were paid and a true copy of the accounts of the forms last supplied was furnished, the authorities are bound to issue him “C” form and the same cannot be refused on any ground other than those stipulated in Rule 6 of the CST (0) Rules so long his certificate of registration remains valid. 11. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12. The Kerala High Court in Salvicate (Bangalore) Private Limited [1998] 109 STC 543 held that withholding of “C” forms may sometimes result in the complete destruction of trade or business in which event it may amount to total restriction which is impermissible under the law. 13. The Madras High Court in W. P. Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1967 and 840 of 1971 (Nambiar v. State of Madras) by order dated April 27, 1971 held that there is no provision in the Act which authorises the Commercial Tax Officer to refuse to provide the assesse with “C” forms. If the assesse misused the “C” form, that will be punishable under Section 10 of the Central Act. Beyond that, it had no effect, not even in tax. The Commercial Tax Officer was not constituted as a policeman to regulate and conduct the assesse along the virtuous path. Nambiar’s case (W. P. Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1967 and 840 of 1971, decided on April 27, 1971) has been referred in Chanda Paints (Madras) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1986] 61 STC 335. xxx xxx xxx 18. This being the reason for enacting Section 8 of the CST Act, which in our view is in public interest, the Revenue authorities should not act in any manner so as to defeat the very purpose for which Section 8 of the CST Act was enacted. xxx xxx xxx 18. This being the reason for enacting Section 8 of the CST Act, which in our view is in public interest, the Revenue authorities should not act in any manner so as to defeat the very purpose for which Section 8 of the CST Act was enacted. The statue provides that “C” form should be issued under a particular manner. It must be strictly adhered to. If a dealer fulfils the conditions required under the statute for getting “C” form or any other statutory forms, the Revenue authorities are bound to issue such forms. They cannot refuse to issue “C” forms or other statutory forms on some plea or other. It is wellsettled position of law that what cannot be done “per directum is not permissible to be done per obliquum”, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance, on the principle of “quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud”. In the present case, it is further found that the authorities are not issuing required number of “C” forms on irrelevant ground. The “C” forms are issued in piecemeal manner without any justification. Such unwarranted delayed practice of issuing the “C” forms on the part of the statutory authorities is certainly undesirable and liable to be deprecated. Necessary steps should be taken to minimize such practice of arbitrary use of power. This is not a healthy practice on the part of the authorities acting on behalf of the Revenue in the matter of collection of Tax. In order to gain faith of the assessees and create confidence in the minds of the taxpayers for smooth administration of tax law, the sales tax authorities must act in a fair and legal manner.” (emphasis supplied) (xviii) In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon’ble Orissa High Court that, it appears that while granting Form-C, the authorities are required to consider the following facts: (a) Whether the applicant is a registered dealer or not? (b) Denial of the issuance of Form-C is under very very limited circumstances and what is to be verified by the officers of the respondent-State while grant or otherwise of Form-C is: (i) Whether the goods for the purchase of which Form-C is demanded by the registered dealer is mentioned in the certificate of registration or not? (b) Denial of the issuance of Form-C is under very very limited circumstances and what is to be verified by the officers of the respondent-State while grant or otherwise of Form-C is: (i) Whether the goods for the purchase of which Form-C is demanded by the registered dealer is mentioned in the certificate of registration or not? (ii) Whether the necessary amount for getting Form-C has been paid or not and so far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, whether the applicant for getting Form-C has committed any violation of Rule 8 of the Central Sales Tax (Jharkhand) Rules, 2006 or not. For no other reason Form-C can be denied to the registered dealer much less by: (a) Pre-judging the nature of the transaction. (b) By pre-judging the issue regarding the probable misuse of Form-C by the applicant of Form-C. (c) For the reasons other than the reasons as stated hereinabove otherwise, it will be termed as extraneous consideration by the officers of the respondent-State, which is known as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. Thus, the officers of the State cannot deny the grant of Form-C, on the ground that the nature of transaction, is not falling within Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This type of extraneous considerations cannot be given weightage to for denial of grant of Form-C otherwise such type of denial will be termed as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. (xix) Looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, following are the reasons mentioned for denial of Form-C: “7. That the C Forms are being generated online nowadays and there is no interference by the authorities concerned in the generation as long as a dealer checks all the columns and provides all the details on the portal. 8. That there is a requirement of providing the details of road permits in the cases of inter state sale to determine whether a sale is genuinely an inter-state sale or not by the system and in the case of the petitioner the details provided by it in the columns of the road permits, the buying and the selling dealer both are from the State of Jharkhand itself and because of that the details provided by the petitioner are failing the test for validation by the system itself and C Forms are not being generated. 11. 11. That at this point it is pertinent to mention here that in a recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A & B Projects & Technologies Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka [(2008) VIL 40 SC] has laid down the tests mainly in Para 11 of the judgment for determining as to whether a sale falls under section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in order for a sale to qualify under section 3(b), the property in the goods should pass during the movement of goods from one state to another by transfer of documents of title while in the cases of section 3(a) the transfer of property in goods is predetermined and the transfer of goods from one state to another is on the basis of a contract of sale. The dividing line between sales or purchases under Section 3(a) and those falling under Section 3(b) is that in the former case the movement is under the contact whereas in the latter case the contract comes into existence only after the commencement and before termination of the inter-State movement of the goods. Therefore, it follows that an inter-State sale can either be governed under Section 3(a) – if it occasions under Section 3(b) - if it is effected by transfer of documents of title after such movement has started and before the goods are actually delivered. 12. That for the purpose of determining as to whether the Petitioner is eligible for the issuance of C Forms and as to whether the sale as claimed by it is an inter state sale and not intra state, the authorities have asked the petitioner to appear along with all the documents and details and upon the presentation of the same the authorities concerned will decide the same.” (emphasis supplied) (xx) These reasons have to be given by the respondent State in the counter affidavit because under Rule 11(A) of the Central Sales Tax (Jharkhand) Rules, 2006, now e-portal has been started by the respondent-State. There will be e-applications and there will be egeneration of Form-C automatically by the computer. Computer works upon the programming done by the respondent-State. If there is a wrong programming, there can be denial of grant of Form-C. Normally the computer never gives the reason. There will be e-applications and there will be egeneration of Form-C automatically by the computer. Computer works upon the programming done by the respondent-State. If there is a wrong programming, there can be denial of grant of Form-C. Normally the computer never gives the reason. Only one or two lines are given by the computer, if the Form-C is not issued and this one or two lines as argued by the counsel for the petitioner is as under: “There is a mis-match between the value as displayed in the road permit vis-a-vis the invoice value which is indicated by the seller or the petitioner.” Thus, the two words are mentioned: one is a “road permit” and another is an “invoice” and the “matching of the value”, the computer is seeking. This search of the computer is based upon the programming by the respondent-State which is extraneous consideration, which in the eye of law is known as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. This search of the matching in the value in the road permit and in the invoice is nowhere mentioned in any provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 nor under any Rule made thereunder. This wrong programming is being done by the respondents and hence, wrong reasons have been given by the computer. Transaction envisaged under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to be read with Section 6(2) of the Act, 1956 has not been properly appreciated by the computers of the respondent-State which are generating Form-C through e-portal because there is a wrong programming by the respondent-State authorities. The wrong programming depends upon the clarity or confusion in the mind of the State officers, about the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. All eventualities of inter-State sale have not been properly appreciated by the officers of the State and therefore, wrong programming is being done and therefore wrongly Form-C has been denied to this petitioner, as envisaged under Section 3(b) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. All eventualities of inter-State sale have not been properly appreciated by the officers of the State and therefore, wrong programming is being done and therefore wrongly Form-C has been denied to this petitioner, as envisaged under Section 3(b) to be read with Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. As stated hereinabove, when the dealer of the petitioner is purchasing the goods from outside the State, the manufacturer has to give E1 Form (as required under Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1957) and the dealer of this petitioner has to give Form-C to the manufacturer of the goods of the other State and the goods are to be transported. As stated hereinabove, this petitioner has already given a narration of the goods to be purchased by the dealer and hence, in view of this understanding between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods or at the highest due to agreement of sale between petitioner and the dealer of the goods or in a worst case, as per the contract of sale of future goods between the petitioner and the dealer, during transit of the goods, the dealer will put an endorsement. This endorsement is a transfer of property in the goods. This endorsement is a sale of the goods between dealer and this petitioner. Hence, the transaction is covered by Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the benefit of concessional rate of tax is also available to this petitioner under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (xxi) When the dealer is purchasing the goods from the manufacturer of the other States, invoice has to be issued by the manufacturer of the goods in favour of the dealer of the goods in which the name of the manufacturer of the goods will be mentioned and the name of the purchaser of the goods will be mentioned (who is a dealer of the goods) and the name of the consignee of the goods will be mentioned (the name of this petitioner). Merely because name of the consignee is mentioned, which is of this petitioner it does not mean that there is a pre-existing contract of sale between this petitioner and the dealer. Merely because name of the consignee is mentioned, which is of this petitioner it does not mean that there is a pre-existing contract of sale between this petitioner and the dealer. Merely because name of this petitioner is mentioned as a consignee in the invoice generated by manufacturer/seller of the goods from other State it does not mean that there was pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between the petitioner and dealer of the goods and even if the name of this petitioner is mentioned as a consignee in the invoice generated by the seller of the goods from other States, the contract of sale between petitioner and dealer will come into existence upon endorsement made by the dealer of the goods, during transit of the goods or during movement of the goods. Hence, in the facts of the present case, the transaction is covered by Section 3(b) and this petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax provided under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (xxii) Whenever the goods are to be transported by the seller of the goods from another State to this State, a road permit is required which is known as Sugam-G permit. This permit is to be given by this petitioner to the manufacturer of the goods of another State, as required under Section 72(2) to be read with Section 2 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to be read with Rule 42 (2) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006. In this Sugam-G format of the road permit, the price at which the goods are sold by the seller of the goods who is situated in another State to the dealer of the goods has to be mentioned e.g. for the goods worth Rs.100/- if 2% is taxed, then the invoice generated by the seller of the goods (of another State) to the dealer of the goods will be Rs.102/-. This amount has to be mentioned in a road permit known as Sugam-G which is given by this petitioner to the seller of the goods (of another State). Now the goods can be transported from another State to the State of Jharkhand. This Sugam-G permitroad permit is a legal document which is required for transportation of the goods. This amount has to be mentioned in a road permit known as Sugam-G which is given by this petitioner to the seller of the goods (of another State). Now the goods can be transported from another State to the State of Jharkhand. This Sugam-G permitroad permit is a legal document which is required for transportation of the goods. Now the dealer will put an endorsement which is known, in the eye of law, as transfer of the property in the goods in favour of this petitioner which is also known as sale of goods between the dealer of the goods and this petitioner. Now this petitioner has to give Form-C to the dealer of the goods and while giving the details to the e-portal created by the respondent-State under Rule 11(A) of Central Sales Tax (Jharkhand) Rules, 2006, the value of the goods is to be mentioned. Now the dealer of the goods is selling the goods to the petitioner for more than Rs.102/- in the example given hereinabove, keeping his own margin of profit as provided as per example at Rs.105/- and hence when the petitioner is giving the details to the e-portal for getting Form-C he has to give the details of the road permit-Sugam-G and the details of the sale price between the dealer of the goods and the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, the road permit will reflect a sale price at Rs.102/-, in the example given hereinabove, which is a sale price between, the manufacturer/seller of the goods and the dealer of the goods which is known as sale no.1. Now when sale no.2 starts upon endorsement made by the dealer of the goods during the transit of the goods under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer will add his own margin of profit and hence, the sale price will be Rs.105/- by way of an illustration. Now when sale no.2 starts upon endorsement made by the dealer of the goods during the transit of the goods under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer will add his own margin of profit and hence, the sale price will be Rs.105/- by way of an illustration. Now, when Form-C is to be generated by this petitioner, there is bound to be a difference of the value of the goods mentioned in Sugam-G-road transport permit and the value of goods at which it is purchased by the petitioner from the dealer of the goods which is a sale no.2, but, this cannot be a reason for denial of Form-C. Mechanically, the programing has been done by the officers of the respondent-State and therefore, wrong result has been generated by e-portal which is of denial of grant of Form-C which has given birth to this petition and several such type of litigations. Sale no.1 and sale no.2, as stated hereinabove, are bound to be with difference in price, otherwise dealer will not get any profit and merely because there is a price difference in the Sugam-G form-road permit and price given by the petitioner while getting Form-C, that does not mean that Form-C can be denied to the petitioner. Thus, there is bound to be a difference in price mentioned in Sugam-G-road permit and the invoice between dealer and the petitioner and hence, this can be a ground for denial of Form-C on the plea of a difference in the price. (xxiii) Upon wrong programming being done by the respondent-State authorities in their e-portal the respondent-State has realized their mistake and now “dummy road permit” is being given by the respondent-State. Under no law such type of provision is there for grant of dummy road permit. The whole concept of dummy road permit is being generated, as a solution to the wrong programming. This dummy road permit solution is as per the whims and caprice of the officers of the State because neither there is any provision in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 nor under the Rules indicated under the Central Sales Tax Act nor under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 or the Rules made thereunder in the year 2006 there is any provision for the dummy road permit. Instead of finding out a solution de-hors the Act or de-hors the Law, it is advisable to correct the programming by the State in their e-portal for generating Form-C. One wrong is already committed by the State of a wrong programming. Extraneous considerations have been appreciated for denial of Form-C which is known as ”Wednesbury unreasonableness” and now second wrong is committed by the State, by way of solution, of the aforesaid difficulty by way of issuance of dummy road permit. Thus, there is an error committed by the respondent-State. The dummy road permit is given for the goods transported by the dealer to the petitioner which is never envisaged by any law for the time being in force applicable in the State of Jharkhand. (xxiv) Looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- State, as stated hereinabove, one more reason has been given for denial of Form-C which is mentioned in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit. Let us first of all analyse the wrong reason given by the State and thereafter consider the analysis of that reason. The reason given by the State is that if dealer of the goods is situated within the State of Jharkhand, then the transaction between the dealer and the petitioner is an intra-state sale. This reason can be given by absolutely a confused minded person. Even if the dealer is situated within the State of Jharkhand and the petitioner is also situated within the State of Jharkhand, there may be an inter-State sale, especially under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. What is required to be appreciated by the respondent-State is the sale of goods during the movement of the goods. Such type of sale during transit of the goods is being done through endorsement. (xxv) It ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-State that the residence or the registered office of the dealer and the petitioner is not a test to be applied to judge the nature of the transaction whether it is an intra-State sale or inter-State sale. (xxv) It ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-State that the residence or the registered office of the dealer and the petitioner is not a test to be applied to judge the nature of the transaction whether it is an intra-State sale or inter-State sale. Even if the dealer of the goods is situated within the State of Jharkhand, he can purchase the goods from outside the State of Jharkhand and during the transit of those goods from another State to the State of Jharkhand, an endorsement can be made by the dealer of the goods and this endorsement is known as transfer of the property in the goods to this petitioner during transit of the goods which is known as sale of the goods during transit of the goods which is covered under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and as per Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 such type of purchaser, during transit of the goods, is also entitled to get the benefit of the purchase of the goods with exemption of tax. Thus, the reasons given in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State is not a valid reason in the eye of law. (xxvi) Looking to paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit it appears that there is a mis-interpretation and misreading of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 2 SCC 326 especially paragraph no.13 thereof. For ready reference relevant part of paragraph no.13 reads as under: “Para 13. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 2 SCC 326 especially paragraph no.13 thereof. For ready reference relevant part of paragraph no.13 reads as under: “Para 13. ……………………………………………………… The dividing line between sales and the purchase under Section 3(a) and thus falling under Section 3(b) is that in the former case the movement is under the contract whereas in the latter case the contract comes into existence only after the commencement and before the termination of the inter-state movement of the goods ……………………….” (emphasis supplied) (xxvii) Looking to the counter affidavit, it appears that the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court has been wrongly appreciated by the respondent- State that there was pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods at a point of time prior to the sale of goods between the manufacturer of the goods from other inter-State and the dealer of the goods. It ought to be kept in mind that mere narration of the goods given by this petitioner to the dealer for their purchase from outside the State is nothing, but, an understanding on purchase of the goods or at the highest it can be said to be an agreement to sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods or in the worst case, it can be a “present sale of future goods”, (which is known as agreement to sale as per Section 6(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956). Sale of goods between this petitioner and the dealer will come into existence, when the dealer puts an endorsement during transit of the goods in favour of this petitioner. This endorsement made by the dealer of the goods converts “agreement to sale” into “sale” or by this endorsement it can be said that “present sale of future goods” is converted into “sale”. Present sale of future goods is also “an agreement to sale” (as per Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956). Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between petitioner and the dealer of the goods, prior to the purchase of the goods by the dealer from the manufacturer of the goods (from another State). Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between petitioner and the dealer of the goods, prior to the purchase of the goods by the dealer from the manufacturer of the goods (from another State). Sale between petitioner and the dealer comes into existence only upon the endorsement made by this dealer of the goods, during transit of the goods. It appears that the respondent- State authorities has lost sight of the correct meaning of: (a) Agreement to sale which is in pre-existence between petitioner and the dealer of the goods. (b) Present sale of future goods is also known as agreement to sale (as per Section 6(3) of the Sale of goods Act). (c) The incidence of tax is on a sale and not an agreement to sale. Thus, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and mechanically the reason has been given in paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit by wrong interpretation of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence, the reasons given in paragraph no.11 for denial of grant of Form-C is not tenable at law. (xxiii) Counsel for the respondent State has relied upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.2296 of 2007 decided on 14th September, 2015. We have perused the said judgment and looking to the facts of that judgment it appears that the observations made in the decision is for the assessment proceeding. In the facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, we are at the stage of grant or refusal of Form-C. Annual assessment is yet to be done and hence, the nature of transaction whether it is falling under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or whether there is any difference in the price under Sugam-G form (road transport permit) and in the invoice issued by the dealer of the goods to the petitioner cannot be appreciated at the stage of Form-C. These fine niceties of the nature of transaction can be appreciated at the time of annual assessment of the returns filed by this petitioner or returns filed by the dealer, hence, this judgment is of no help to the respondent. The two stages are different; one is Form-C stage and another is assessment stage. The two stages are different; one is Form-C stage and another is assessment stage. At the time of grant of Form-C, assessment is not to be done. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19828 of 2010, dated 24.02.2011. We have perused the said judgment. Nothing is in favour of the respondent-State. The said judgment has pointed out to the State authorities that whenever there is a violation of provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder or if at all there is any misuse of Form-C looking to provision under Section 10 to be read with 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, penalty can be imposed and levied by the respondent-State. Moreover, counsel for the respondent has relied upon paragraph nos.7 and 9. Looking to the facts of the present case and the decisions referred to hereinabove, the nature of the transaction cannot be pre-judged by the respondent-authorities at the stage of grant of Form-C nor any other controversial issue can be decided or pre-judged by the respondent-authorities while issuing Form-C. (xxix) What relief can be granted to the petitioner: It has been held by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Unitech Ltd. Vs. commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam reported in (1991) 83 STC 207 in paragraph no.5 as under: “5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The authorities shall supply the requisite number of “C” forms according to the Rules, as and when applied by the petitioner. No Costs. Advocate’s fee Rs.150.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, the direction was given by Hon’ble the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the respondent-authorities shall supply the requisite number of C-Forms in accordance with rules as and when applied by the petitioner. Similar direction was given in other judgments also by relegating the petitioner to the State. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to appreciate the aforesaid observations made in this judgment in the light of several decisions cited hereinabove. As stated hereinabove, in only four eventualities Form-C can be denied to the registered dealer viz. (a) Whether the applicant of Form-C is a registered dealer or not under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? As stated hereinabove, in only four eventualities Form-C can be denied to the registered dealer viz. (a) Whether the applicant of Form-C is a registered dealer or not under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? (b) Whether the goods for which Form-C is demanded is enumerated or included in the certificate of registration or not? (c) The necessary amount for getting Form-C has been paid or not? (d) Whether there is any violation of Rule 8 of Central Sales Tax (Jharkhand) Rules, 2006? No other requirement is put forth by the respondent much less: (a) The nature of transaction i.e. inter-State sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods. (b) Merely because the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a consignee in the invoice issued by the seller of the goods to the dealer of the goods. (c) Even if there is a difference of a sale price mentioned in Sugam-G permit – road permit and the invoice issued by the dealer of the goods to the petitioner-applicant of Form-C, it also cannot be a grant for denial of Form-C. (d) Even if dealer of the goods and this petitioner are staying or residing in the same State or even if their registered offices are situated in the same State, but, if the endorsement is made by the dealer of the goods during transit of the goods or during movement of the goods from one State to another in favour of this petitioner (applicant of Form-C), then also grant of Form-C cannot be denied to this petitioner or the person like the petitioner. (e) And for such other reasons also Form-C cannot be denied to the registered dealer-petitioner-applicant of Form-C. (xxx) The State authorities ought to keep in mind that what is to be done at the time of annual assessment cannot be done at the time of issuance of Form-C e.g. the State authority cannot prejudge the nature of transaction nor the state authorities can enter into the question whether the applicant will misuse Form-C. If there is misuse of Form-C, provisions under Section 10 and/ or-10-A as the case may be of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 should be made operative by the State of Jharkhand whereby they can impose a penalty where there is a provision of imprisonment and/or penalty at the rate of one and half times of the tax payable. It ought to be kept in mind by the State authorities that grant of Form-C is rule and the denial of grant of Form-C is a rarest of rare exception. Sparingly there shall be denial of Form-C, only for the reasons as mentioned hereinabove. 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations, we, hereby direct the respondent-State that the application of the petitioner for supply of declaration in Form-C be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and in accordance with the aforesaid observations and in accordance with the judgments referred to hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, for the periods mentioned in this writ petition.