RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS revision under section 86 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated October 28, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are : that the assessee-respondent sold goods vide Bills Nos. 1512 and 1513 dated March 29, 1985 to M/s. Silkyrock India Private Limited, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 48,298 and Rs. 66,710. These goods were despatched on March 29, 1985. The consignment was shown as "self" and the documents were sent through Canara Bank. The purchaser retired the documents from bank on April 10, 1985 and thereafter, took delivery of the goods.
(2.) THE purchaser was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on April 1, 1985. C form was despatched on May 3, 1985 from Bangalore. THE assessing officer vide his reassessment order dated November 27, 1989 under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 held that on the date when the bills were prepared in the name of the dealer, i. e. , March 29, 1985, he was not a registered dealer and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax under section 8 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") and not under section 8 (1) of the Act attracting the rate of tax at 4 per cent. THE assessing officer therefore levied tax at the rate of 10 per rent, which is applicable in the case of sale to unregistered dealer. Against the order dated November 27, 1989, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dated July 2, 1990 allowed the appeal holding that the delivery of goods was taken by the assessee on April 10, 1985 and at that time, he was a registered "dealer" and prior to that the consignment being in the name of self and the documents being in possession of the bank, the provisions of section 8 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are not attracted. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer and the Tribunal vide its order dated October 28, 1994 rejected the appeal affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). Having perused the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that there is no fallacy in the conclusion arrived at by the Divisional Commissioner (Appeals), which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The taxable event is sale. No property in goods passed until April 10, 1985 when the buyer retired the documents from the bank after giving payment. Thus, sale to the buyer could be said to have taken place earliest only on April 10, 1985 when he acquired right to secure the goods, on which date the buyer was a registered dealer, who could buy goods against "c" forms. "c" forms have also been submitted after the firm got registered. In these circumstances, sale in question could not be held to be a sale to unregistered dealer so as to attract the provisions of section 8 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Hence, the impugned order dated October 28, 1994 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference in this revision petition. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. . ;