BIHARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State -respondents. The petitioner had filed a Writ Tax No. 969 of 2012 for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector II, Sonebhadra, to consider the petitioner's application for amendment in the registration certificate and for issuing form C for import of machinery used in construction works. The writ petition was disposed of on August 13, 2012, with directions that the petitioner's application for amendment, and for issuance of form C, shall be decided within two weeks of making the representation along with the certified copy of the order. The petitioner presented the order on September 13, 2012 on which the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has amended the registration certificate. He has, however, rejected the application for issuance of form C.

(2.) SHRI Aloke Kumar appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for form C has been rejected by giving extraneous reasons. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has in his order referred to the talk with the issuing officer, who was on leave and has refused to give form C. The issuing officer has not passed any order himself either accepting or rejecting the application.

(3.) THE amendment in the registration certificate has been carried out. So far as issuance of form C for blank forms for import of machinery and goods for construction, the issuing officer should have passed the appropriate order in compliance with the order of the court.