Patel Consulting | Trusted AdvisorsCall us: +91-98765-43210

High Court: Submission of C Forms Mandatory for Tax Exemption Under Industrial Policy

11 November 2025Meetu Kumari
High Court: Submission of C Forms Mandatory for Tax Exemption Under Industrial Policy

High Court: Submission of C Forms Mandatory for Tax Exemption Under Industrial Policy

The assessee, an industrial unit based in North Guwahati, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 21 August 2013 and another revisional order dated December 2014 under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner, an exempted unit under the Industrial and Investment Policy of Assam, 2008, was granted eligibility and entitlement certificates for tax exemption from 26 June 2009 to 25 June 2016.

The disagreement occurred for assessment year 2010-11 when the exemption was denied on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish the mandatory “C Forms” required under Section 8(4) of the CST Act to prove interstate sales eligible for concessional tax or exemption.

Core Issue: Whether a registered industrial unit can claim sales tax exemption under the Assam Industrial Policy and Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act without submitting the mandated “C Forms”.

Also Read

HC Decided: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that compliance with Section 8(4) of the CST Act is mandatory to claim the benefit of Section 8(5). The Court said that the exemption under the Industrial Policy cannot override the statutory requirement of producing C Forms to establish inter-state sales. Referring to Prism Cement Ltd. , the Court reiterated that the 2002 amendment to the CST Act made adherence to Section 8(4) compulsory even for transactions falling under Section 8(5).

The Court also quoted Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Union of India v. VVF Ltd., explaining once again that exemption provisions in fiscal statutes must be construed strictly in favour of the Revenue. The revisional authority’s finding that the petitioner had already received an excess rebate was found reasonable, and the Court held there was no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Thus, the court, while dismissing the petition, upheld the assessment and revisional orders.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below