S. C. VERMA, J. - (1.) The present revision relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The dealer disclosed his taxable turnover at Rs. 45,89,660. 20 and the net turnover at Rs. 20,63,771. 24. The assessing authority even though accepted the account books of the dealer enhanced the turnover to Rs. 1,46,790. 39 with regard to welding alloys which was claimed as transit sale. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, by his order dated 28th March, 1991, confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Sales Tax Tribunal by ex parte order dated 18th January, 1988, on account of failure of the dealer in filing form C, confirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, and hence the present revision. According to the learned counsel for the applicant it has been stated that the subsequent sale of welding alloys was covered by form E-1, which was on record before the assessing authority and, as such it was not obligatory to produce form C before the assessing authority to claim exemption. In accordance with the provisions of section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act in case a dealer effecting subsequent sale furnishes to the authority in the prescribed manner within prescribed time form E-1 and form C he shall be exempted from payment of tax. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that in view of the second proviso furnishing of declaration in form C is not necessary if a dealer proves to the satisfaction of the authority, such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (B) of sub-section (2) of section 6, i. e. , sale to a registered dealer other than Government if the goods is of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act. In these circumstances if shall not be necessary for the assessee to file form C for claiming exemption under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on second proviso to section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is quoted below : " 6 (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . Provided further that it shall not be necessary to furnish the declaration or the certificate referred to in clause (b) of the preceding proviso in respect of a subsequent sale of goods if, - (a) the sale or purchase of such goods is, under the sale tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or is subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name); and (b) the dealer effecting such subsequent sale proves to the satisfaction of the authority referred to in the preceding proviso that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (B) of this sub-section. " Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the case reported in (1986) II ATJ 374 (Continental Engineers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax ). Apart from the aforesaid legal argument the applicant has also tried to bring on record counterfoils of form C which were issued by the U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. in favour of the applicant in respect of the aforesaid transactions. It was contended that since the Tribunal decided the matter in the absence of the dealer this material could not be placed before the Tribunal. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order of the Tribunal and in my opinion, the case requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and on the basis of provisions contained in second proviso to section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The authorities below have not applied their mind to the provisions for the purposes of recording their satisfaction that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (B) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. The Tribunal will also consider the other aspect regarding the issue of form C to the dealer by the U. P. Cement Corporation Ltd. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The revision is allowed. The order dated 18th January, 1988, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in accordance with the observations made in the order and in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;