ORDER
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in T.A. No. 163 of 1998 and Cross Objection Petition No. 239 of 1998 dated September 28, 1999. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent dealing in oil and oil cake during the relevant period, i.e., for the assessment year 1994-95. The petitioner has been effecting local sale as well as transferring the stock of oil to its agents in other States. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by filing form F declaration prescribed under the Act. It has also furnished other particulars as per the prescribed form F like, mode of despatch, proof of despatch, etc. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim of exemption, which has been confirmed by the appellate authorities. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority raised a question for determination to the effect that the main point for consideration in the appeal before it was as to whether the movement of the goods was occasioned for consignment transfer or outright inter-State sale. The Tribunal has given the very same reason that has been given by the authorities below that there are some discrepancies in the serial number of form F. However, the other particulars stated in the form F has not been taken note of either for acceptance or for rejection, in this case, for rejection.
4. Now, the law is well-settled that Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of Section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sale. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of 'sale' would not be exigible to tax. The amendment incorporated in sub-section (2) to Section 6A of the Act was not available to fasten the liability on the basis of the fiction created in the above said provision during the relevant period. Though certain discrepancies have been stated about form F and serial numbers issued by the Maharashtra authorities, no finding has been given for coming to the conclusion that the movement of the goods has been occasioned pursuant to the sale, despite such a question has been raised by the Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority for consideration. The nature of enquiry sought to be made on the declaration form F filed by the petitioner has been stated in the decided case, the last of which is in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. Such an exercise has not been made in this case. Hence, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the assessing authorities, taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act prevalent at the relevant point of time and record a finding as to whether the claim of exemption made by the petitioner that the goods were consigned to the agent of the petitioner in Maharashtra is correct or not or in the alternate record a finding as to whether the sale of the goods has occasioned the movement of the goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Maharashtra so as to attract the provisions of inter-State sale or not.
5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority to consider the issue again on the basis of the materials already made available before the assessing officer and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also in accordance with what is indicated above.
6. No. costs.