Lahiri, J.- We propose to dispose of the Civil Rules by a common order as they stem from a common order dated 12.4.1983 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case Nos. 3 ST(H) to 7 ST (H) of 1981, arising out of Tax Case Nos. 5 STA to 9 STA of 1979 and involve common questions of law and similar questions of fact. 2. The petitioner company namely, the Indian Oil Cor­poration is a manufacturer and dealer of petroleum and various petroleum products. It is a Government Company and is a successor to M/s. Assam Oil Company Limited, for short "AOC" The undertakings "AOC" were taken over by the Government of India under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Burmah Oil Company (Acquisition of Shares of Oil Company (India Trading) Limited Act, 1981. With effect from 14.10.81 the right, title and interest of the said company in relation to its under­taking in India stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government who issued a notification u/s 9 of the Act provi­ding, inter alia, that the right, title, interest and the liabilities of 'AOC' in relation to its undertaking in India shall vest in the petitioners for short "IOC", with effect from 14.10.81, in so far as they relate to the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products Section 6(5) of the Act provided inter alia that all suits or appeals and other proceed­ings of whatever nature pending on 14.10.81 by or against the AOC would continue to be in force by or against Indian Oil Corporation, for short "IOC". During the return periods ending 30.9.59 to 30.9.61 AOC, predecessor of the petitioners had des­patched petroleum products to different places outside Assam. The despatces were made to M/s. Indo Burma Petroleum Company Limited, M/s. Standard Vacum Oil Company and M/s. Caltex Limited to destinations outside the State of Assam. The despat­ches were made at the instance of the distributing agents of 'AOC', namely, M/s. Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited for short "BOC (IT)". By an agreement dated 17.1.57 BOC (IT) was appointed as the sole selling agent for the marke­ting of the products of "AOC". The despatches so made to the three aforesaid companies to places outside Assam were made under a scheme known and styled as "the Product Exchange Scheme", introduced by the Government of India. By an agreement dated 17.1.57 BOC (IT) was appointed as the sole selling agent for the marke­ting of the products of "AOC". The despatches so made to the three aforesaid companies to places outside Assam were made under a scheme known and styled as "the Product Exchange Scheme", introduced by the Government of India. The quanti­ties of petroleum products supplied to the aforesaid three com­panies were later returned in kind by the said companies to the agents of AOC, namely BOC (IT) at different places, out­side Assam. 3. The Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia, assessed the turn­over of "AOC” for the aforesaid return periods', namely, periods ending 30.9.59 to 30.9.61. While making the orders of assess­ment the Superintendent of Taxes observed that the said company had failed to produce, any agreement with the aforesaid three companies and/or, produce any evidence of receipts of goods in lieu of despatches made by the company to the said three companies outside the Stats of Assam and/or the companies failed to show that the despatches were on exchange basis and that no monetary consideration was received or receivable by 'AOC' or its agent BOC (IT) Ltd.. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Taxes treated the despatches as inter-State sales and levied taxes at the rate of 10 % on the estimated value of the petroleum products so despatched. Being aggrieved the petiti­oners company preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissi­oner of Taxes. Admittedly, at the hearing 'AOC' produced nece­ssary materials and documents to prove the contention of des­patches made on "Product Exchange Account" and that no monetary consideration was received or receivable in respect of the said despatches. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes recorded his finding as to the production of documents regarding despa­tches made by 'AOC' to the three companies referred above. It held, inter alia, that the quantities of the product so despa­tched were returned in kind by the purchasing companies, namely, M/s. Standard Vacum Oil Company, Indo Burma Petroleum Company and Caltex to M/s. Burmah-Shell Company an agent of 'AOC'. It was contended that the entire operation had to be executed under the Product Exchange Scheme and in return of the despatches made identical quantities of the product were returned by the companies concerned to BOC (IT) the agent of AOC and the transactions in question did not constitute "sale" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Although the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes had before him materials to show that petroleum products were despatched under the Product Exchange Scheme and later BOC (IT) received back indentical quantity of petroleum products and that on monetary consideration was ever received or ever receivable by 'AOC' and/or its agents, in respect of the despatches made by 'AOC', he held that it amounted to sale within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 1.3.78. 4. Being aggrieved by the order the AOC preferred appeals be­fore the Assam Board of Revenue, for short "the Board", the appe­llate authority. The petitioner company placed before "the Board" the findings reached by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), the relevant documents which had been produced by the petitioner before the Asstt. Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) and contended that there were no sales as contemplated under Section 2 (g) of the Central Sales Tax Act and as such they were not an inter-State sale. However, learned Board of Revenue by its order dated 29. 5. 81, by a common judgment rejected the five appeals. It held, inter alia, that in absence of any spec­ific contract between 'AOC' and the three companies the conten­tions of the petitioner company could not be sustained, that the transactions were 'Barter' and not "sale", the Board of Revenue held that the findings reached by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) were not finding but were merely 'summary of the contentions". The Board also held that the goods desp­atched to the above three companies were turnover of "AOC". It overlooked the entries made in the "Product Exchange Acco­unt" in respect of the goods despatched by the company and received by them and/or through their agents, outside the State of Assam. The appeals were dismissed, whereupon the petitioner asked for references under Section 32(1) the of Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Assam Act') but they were dismissed. The petitioner desired the following questions to be referred to this Court under Section 32 of "the Assam Act" read with Sec­tion 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We extract the questions proposed to be referred by the petitioner. The petitioner desired the following questions to be referred to this Court under Section 32 of "the Assam Act" read with Sec­tion 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We extract the questions proposed to be referred by the petitioner. "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Section 2(g), 3 and 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the learned Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the despatches in question made by the assessee to the three Oil Companies amounted to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act? (2) Whether the conclusion of the learned Board of Revenue holding the transactions to be 'sale' is vitiated in law by reason of improper rejection and/or non-consi­deration of relevant materials and evidence on record and being based on surmises, suspicion and conjectures? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Board of Revenue was correct in law in not accepting the clear and categorical findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) regard­ing the despatches made by the assessee to the three Oil Companies and was justified in law on the basis of the provisions of the Act applicable to the present case in placing the burden of proof on the assessee to show that the transactions in question did not amount to 'sale' within the meaning of the Act and in recording its findings and conclusion on that basis. " 5. The petitioner prayed that the following documents which should form the part of the case to be referred to the High Court, namely, (i) Order of assessment dated 15.6.71 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia. (ii) Order dated 1.3.78 passed by the Assistant Commi­ssioner of Taxes (Appeals), Jorhat. (iii) A Board's consolidated order dated 29.5.81 in Case No. 5 STA/79 to 9 STA/79. (iv) Letter dated 4. 9. 61 from Burmah-Shell Oil Storage Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (v) Letter dated 20. 9. 61 from Standard Vacum Oil Co. (vi) Letter dated 30. 8. 71 from Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. (vii) Affidavit dated 26. 9. 74 sworn by the Area Distri­bution Manager of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distri­buting Co. of India Ltd. (viii) Monthly Exchange Account Statements. 61 from Burmah-Shell Oil Storage Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (v) Letter dated 20. 9. 61 from Standard Vacum Oil Co. (vi) Letter dated 30. 8. 71 from Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. (vii) Affidavit dated 26. 9. 74 sworn by the Area Distri­bution Manager of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distri­buting Co. of India Ltd. (viii) Monthly Exchange Account Statements. (ix) Such other documents on record as the learned Board may deem necessary for the purpose. By a common order the Board of Revenue declined to make the references and rejected the applications filed by the peti­tioner. Hence these applications under Section 32 (4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act read with Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, requiring the Assam Board of Revenue to state the case and refer the questions to this Court for decision. 6. The application was listed for orders. We heard it in presence of Mr. A. S. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. It appears that issuance of Rule or service of the Rule was dispensed with as the counsel for the respondents appeared in person and received notices on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. No return and/or objection has been submitted by any of the respondents. 7. On perusal of the orders of the Board of Revenue we are of the opinion that the cases do involve the construction of Sections 2 (g), 3 and 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The cases do involve substantial questions as to whether, in the instant cases, the finding of the Board of Revenue were vitiated by reason of improper rejection and/or non-consideration of relevant materials and/or evidence produced, before it. These cases also involve the questions of the burden of proof and the effect of the insertion of Section 6 (A) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.73. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. These cases also involve the questions of the burden of proof and the effect of the insertion of Section 6 (A) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.73. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents we hold that the Board of Revenue should state the cases and refer the following questions to this High Court under Section 32 (4) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 read with Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, (956, which we do hereby :- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Sections 2 (g), 3 and 6 of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956, the learned Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the despatches in question made by the assesses to the three Oil Companies amounted to 'sale' within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the said Act? (2) Whether the conclusion of the learned Board of Revenue holding the transactions to be 'sale' is vitiated in law by reason of improper rejection and/or non-consideration of relevant materials and evidence on record and being based on surmises, suspicion and conjectures? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Board of Revenue was correct in law in not accepting the clear and categorical findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) regarding the despatches made by the assessee to the three Oil Co­mpanies and was justified in law on the basis of the provisions of the Act applicable to the present case in placing the burden of proof on the assessee to show that the transactions in question did not amount to 'sale' with­in the meaning of the Act and in recording its findings and conclusion on that basis? While stating the case and making the reference learned Board of Revenue shall undoubtedly furnish the documents referred in paragraph 5 of this judgment. 9. We have satisfied ourselves that the order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 12.4.83 and the copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 27.4 83, and as such, the application is within the period of limitation and the present reference application is competent. 9. We have satisfied ourselves that the order of the Board of Revenue was passed on 12.4.83 and the copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 27.4 83, and as such, the application is within the period of limitation and the present reference application is competent. In the result the petitions are accepted. Send a copy of this order with the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar (J) to the Assam Board of Revenue, Gauhati, for making the reference in terms of the judgment and order.