JUDGMENT This is an application in revision against the order of the Collector of Commercial Taxes confirming an order of the Assistant Collector upholding an assessment on the petitioner for the quarter ending 31st March, 1950. This is a peculiar case. The petitioner filed a return for the quarter ending 31st March, 1950, giving as his total turnover Rs. 1,40,161-13-6 and taxable turnover as Rs. 1,37,358-13-6 and deposited the tax on that basis. The assessing officer called upon him to produce his accounts under section 12(2) of the Act. After the accounts were produced the assessing officer passed the order as follows :- "Examined the accounts produced. Return submitted is accepted. No demand." In appeal the party raised the issue that out of his gross turnover, Rs. 1,35,028-4-0 represents the value of goods transferred from their branch at Ambadola to their branch at Tirunelvely and this not being a sale they are entitled to rebate for this amount. The Assistant Collector held that this was a taxation completed under section 12(1) of the Act and as such a point not taken before the assessing officer cannot be considered in appeal. In the revision also the Collector has held that the points not having been raised before the assessing officer and an admission having been made as to tax payable before the assessing officer it is too late to contend at the appellate stage that tax is not payable. On this ground the revision has been thrown out. There is an error in the courts below as to the exact section under which the assessment has been made. The assessment under section 12(1) of Act is completed when the assessing officer merely accepts the return filed without calling for further evidence. Only than he is competent to accept the return as final. But once he has proceeded under section 12(2) to call for the accounts, a burden is thrown on the assessing officer to make the assessment on the basis of the evidence produced. Section 12(2)(b) is relevant. The account books produced before the Sales Tax Officer contains clearly a statement of despatches to A. K. Joshi and Company at Tirunelvely and there are invoices showing the details totaling in all the amount claimed, namely, Rs. 1,35,028-4-0. The assessing officer having seen this evidence it was incumbent on him to make the assessment considering these facts before him. The account books produced before the Sales Tax Officer contains clearly a statement of despatches to A. K. Joshi and Company at Tirunelvely and there are invoices showing the details totaling in all the amount claimed, namely, Rs. 1,35,028-4-0. The assessing officer having seen this evidence it was incumbent on him to make the assessment considering these facts before him. He has not done so. The Assistant Collector has doubted whether there was any evidence to show that the goods were transferred to his own branch for sale at a future date. The accounts produced have not been doubted and they show invoices made out to their own branch at Tirunelvely for the goods despatched. No doubt the invoices also show sales tax; but this entry by itself creates no claims. Dispatches from one breach to another do not make out a sale. Unless there is evidence of the sales having been completed during this transaction, these despatches cannot create any evidence of sale. So on the facts produced there was evidence to show that the transaction amounting to Rs. 1,35,028-4-0 was transaction of mere despatches to their own branch outside the State. This is not taxable in the Sales Tax Act. The assessing officer should have considered this in making his assessment. He has not done so and there is clearly a right of appeal and revision on this fact. I, therefore, allow the petition and order that a rebate of tax should be allowed on the transactions for Rs. 1,35,028-4-0 which constitute mere transfer of property from the Ambadola branch to the Tirunelvely branch. Petition allowed.