JUDGMENT D.K. Kapur, C.J. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Suit No. 1402 of 1982. The suit is for recovery of price of the goods and in the suit amount is included a sum of Rs. 5,44,925 which is stated to be due from the first defendant in lieu of ST-1 forms. The application which has led to the order under challenge being passed was moved with the idea of getting ST-1 forms from the defendant even before the suit was decided. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the plaintiff has been assessed to sales tax for the year 1981-82 and the turnover includes the sales made to first defendant firm. The delivery of the ST-1 forms would have the effect of reducing the taxable turnover of the plaintiff to the extent of the amounts specified in the ST-1 forms because it is the principle of sales tax law that a sale by registered dealer to a registered dealer is deducted from the taxable turnover on the delivery of the ST-1 forms. The amount of sales tax involved is Rs. 5,44,925. So, if the ST-1 forms are delivered to the plaintiff that would lead to a corresponding deduction in the sales tax liability qua the plaintiff. As a result of the application the learned single Judge was of the view that the delivery of ST-1 forms would be advantageous to both the parties. It would reduce the taxable liability of the plaintiff qua the sales tax order and it would reduce the defendant's liability in the suit to the extent of the claim qua the ST-1 forms. In appeal, it was urged that the learned court had no jurisdiction to pass the order regarding the delivery of ST-1 forms to the defendant as this was the subject-matter of the suit. This argument is fallacious. No doubt, the suit amount includes the value of the ST-1 forms because the plaintiff is suing for the price of the goods plus the amount of the sales tax due qua those goods as the receipt of the goods is not in question at all. The ST forms would result in the reduction of sales tax liability as well as the liability of the first defendant, if any. The ST forms would result in the reduction of sales tax liability as well as the liability of the first defendant, if any. The idea of the order is not to decree the suit but to facilitate the obtaining of the deduction from the sales tax authority. If the ST forms are not delivered within the specified time the deduction cannot be allowed by the sales tax department and there would be serious complication. This is a type of order which is absolutely necessary to be of benefit to both the parties. We fail to understand why the defendant has appealed. There is no specification or decision of the liability of the first defendant qua the goods by this order. In any event, whatever the situation might have been the necessary forms had to be delivered to the plaintiff. It is also urged by the counsel for the appellant that the forms are not to be delivered to the plaintiff because the wrong act is being sought to be applied. The argument qua this point is that the sale is actually one made from Karnataka and not from Delhi. So, the Central Sales Tax Act is to apply and not the Delhi Sales Tax Act. We are not called upon to decide the question. This is a matter for the taxing authority. As the sales tax authority has levied the sales tax treating it to be local sales we need not say anything about which Act and which tax should apply to the same. It is enough to note that in this case delivery of the forms will be of service to both the parties. The appeal is uncalled for. We dismiss it with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000. S.T. forms may be delivered within two weeks. Appeal dismissed.