Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) This is a Revision which was admitted by this Court on 06.02.2009 on the following questions framed in paragraph 2 of the Revision:- "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Stock Transfer of Goods and submission of statutory Form 'F' attracts Trade-tax ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Form 'F' would be considered conclusive proof of Stock Transfer ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Stock Transfer can be considered Inter-State Sale, without any cogent reason ? iv. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Animal Health Products/Cattle Feed are covered by Notification No.ST-2-7036/10-7( ) 23-83 dated 31.-1.1985 ?"
(2.) The Revisionist is a manufacturer of 'Ghee' which had its factory at Aligarh and according to it, it transferred a Stock of Ghee to the tune of Rs.1,48,71,415.86 from Aligarh to its 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' at Jaipur in Rajasthan involving various transactions which is in dispute and has been treated as Inter-State sale. Form-F referred in Section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956') read with Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales-tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1957'), as issued by the Principal Officer at Jaipur, was submitted before the Assessing Authority in the State of U.P. allegedly in term of Section 6-A of the Act, 1956 read with the corresponding Rules, 1957. However, the Assessing Authority did not accept the particulars mentioned in Form-F, and treated the transaction referred hereinabove as Inter-State Sale liable to tax under Section 6 of the Act, 1956 and imposed a tax liability of Rs.18,20,713.77. The First Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 30.03.1995 vide his order dated 28.08.1995. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration as to whether the transactions were similar to other transactions, vide its judgment dated 26.09.2005. Consequent to it i.e. after remand, the Assessing Authority reconsidered the matter vide his judgment dated 06.10.2006 and again took the same view rejecting Form -F submitted by the Revisionist on the ground that in order to examine the matter in the light of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.09.2005 it was necessary to look into the account books and other original records relating to the transactions but none of these were produced before him inspite of show cause notice having been issued in this regard. It observed that particulars mentioned in Form-F were not got verified from original documents and the account books nor from the account books of Jaipur depot of the Clearing and Forwarding Agents. In view of this he reiterated the earlier view that the transaction was Inter State Sale as Clearing and Forwarding Agents was not free to sell off the Stock independently and that as per the agreement delivery of stock to the purchaser was to be made on the directions of the Revisionist and at the rate which was to be determined by the Revisionist Company. The said assessment order was affirmed by the First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 19.07.2007 with the observation that the appellant (revisionist herein) did not produce the relevant documents relating to stock transfer nor the account of the Jaipur depot before the Assessing Authority nor before him i.e. the Appellate Authority, as such, in the absence of these records which were necessary for verification of each of the transaction the Assessing Authority had rightly rejected Form-F submitted by the Appellant (revisionist herein) which did not require any interference. The contention of the revisionist-appellant that Form-F was conclusive proof of the Stock Transfer was repelled by the said authority albeit relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland vs. Union of India and others, 1997 UPTC 1187 SC. It is not out of place to mention that this decision has been over ruled by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision of Ashok Leyland vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 3 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to IInd Ashol Leyland case), wherein it has been held that an order accepting Form-F under Section 6-A of the Act, 1956, raises an irrebuttable and conclusive presumption as to the transaction being a stock transfer and not a sale but more of it later.
(3.) Be that as it may, against the said order a second appeal was filed by the Revisionist before the Tribunal which was rejected on 27.09.2005. The Tribunal's order states that notices were issued to the appellant (revisionist herein) to appear along with account books and complete details regarding the Stock Transfer to Jaipur and to get the said transactions verified from the account books. In response to it the appellant (revisionist) herein submitted that Clearing and Forwarding Agents had sent a copy of the statement of Accounts of the said transactions, the Stock Transferred to Clearing and Forwarding Agent was not meant for any specific customer. The Tribunal inter-alia observed that verification of particulars of Form-F and as to when the transactions as mentioned therein had taken place could be verified only from the account books but the same had not been produced. The contention that submission of Form-F was conclusive proof of Stock Transfer was rejected with the observation that the burden is on the dealer to prove that the transaction was Stock Transfer and it was not Inter State Sale but it had not done so by producing the relevant evidence to support Form-F inspite of notice.;