JUDGMENT R. C. PATNAIK, J. - On an application made by the Revenue under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the following questions were referred for opinion of this Court along with the statement of the case : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the burden was on the Revenue to prove the inter-State sale even if no evidence was adduced by the assessee in support of the claim of branch transfer ? (ii) If the answer of the Honourable Court is in the negative, whether claim of branch transfer could be proved by other evidence in lieu of form F ? 2. The assessee, a Government of Orissa undertaking, is engaged in manufacture of television sets as its factory at Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. It despatched T.V. sets worth Rs. 5,24,460.00 from Bhubaneswar to Calcutta. The assessing officer was of the view that the despatch of T.V. sets to Calcutta amounted to inter-State sale. Appeal by the assessee proved unsuccessful. It, however, succeeded before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upset the views of the original and appellate authorities holding that when the Revenue has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the transactions were covered by inter-State sales, the burden was not on the assessee to show that the sales were branch transfer. Mere despatch of goods from Orissa to outside the State was not exigible to Central sales tax. The Revenue could assess the sales turnover if it proved that the transactions were inter-State sales. 3. Inasmuch as the Central sales tax is not leviable in respect of transactions of transfer of goods from a head office or a principal to a branch or an agent or vice versa as these do not amount to sales, dealers evaded tax by showing genuine sales to third parties as transactions of transfer. With a view to plugging this loophole, section 6-A was incorporation into the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 providing that the burden of proving that the transfer of goods in such cases was otherwise than by way of sale would lie on the dealer who claimed exemption from tax on the ground that there was in fact no sale. With a view to plugging this loophole, section 6-A was incorporation into the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 providing that the burden of proving that the transfer of goods in such cases was otherwise than by way of sale would lie on the dealer who claimed exemption from tax on the ground that there was in fact no sale. The notes on clauses accompanying the statement of objects and reasons for the incorporation of section 6-A read as under : "This clause seeks to insert a new section 6-A in the principal Act for the purpose of providing that the burden of proving that any movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned otherwise than by way of sale shall be on the dealer making such claim. For the purpose of discharging this burden the dealer may produce a declaration in the prescribed form from the person in the other State to whom the goods have been sent along with evidence of such despatch of goods." And section 6-A reads as under : "6-A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. - (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. (2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale." On a reading of sub-section (1) of section 6, there can be little doubt that the burden is on the dealer to prove that it is a mere branch transfer or transfer from the principal to the agent, and the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned not by reason of sale. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in holding that the Revenue was to prove the inter-State sale even if no evidence was adduced by the assessee in support of the claim of branch transfer. As we have said, the burden is on the assessee. The section is in clear and categorical terms and having regard to the purpose of incorporation of section 6-A, it does not admit of any controversy. Answer to question No. (i) is, therefore, in the negative. 4. Whether branch transfer can be proved by other evidence - even without filing the prescribed F forms ? The section is in clear and categorical terms and having regard to the purpose of incorporation of section 6-A, it does not admit of any controversy. Answer to question No. (i) is, therefore, in the negative. 4. Whether branch transfer can be proved by other evidence - even without filing the prescribed F forms ? Section 6-A(1) provides that where any dealer claims certain movement of goods from one State to another was not occasioned by reason of sale, for that purpose, he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may permit, a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods and as provided in sub-section (2), if the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by the dealer are true, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Mere filing of F forms is not conclusive. It is open to the assessing authority to make an enquiry at that stage. The dealer has to satisfy him that the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Sub-section (1), therefore, categorically states that the dealer has to make an application in the prescribed form along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. The provision contained in section 6-A is, therefore, an enabling provision. But does it estop the dealer who has not submitted the declaration in form F from proving aliunde that the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods and not by reason of sale ? In our opinion, there is nothing in section 6-A to persuade us to hold that filing of declaration in form F is the only mode for discharging the burden. Filing of F form may be an easier and convenient mode. It does not prevent the dealer from discharging the burden by other relevant evidence. In our opinion, there is nothing in section 6-A to persuade us to hold that filing of declaration in form F is the only mode for discharging the burden. Filing of F form may be an easier and convenient mode. It does not prevent the dealer from discharging the burden by other relevant evidence. He is not estopped from proving by other evidence that he is not liable to pay tax. It has been held in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Agra Food Products Private Ltd. (printed as appendix at page 266 infra) 1984 STJ 135 (All.) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Camphor and Allied Products 1984 STJ 312 (All.) that the dealer can discharge the burden which lies upon him under sub-section (1) of section 6-A by other modes as well, apart from submitting declaration in form F to the assessing authority. We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative. 5. In course of argument, it was contended on behalf of the dealer that at the hearing before the Tribunal he had the required declaration in form F to prove his claim of branch transfer and the Tribunal should have allowed the dealer the advantage thereof, if necessary, by a remand. We express no opinion thereon inasmuch as the Tribunal shall have to dispose of the matters under section 24(5) in accordance with the opinion on the two questions now given by us. 6. The reference is answered accordingly. S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - I agree. Reference answered accordingly. Appendix [The judgment of R. B. LAL, J., of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Agra Food Products Private Ltd. (S.T.R. No. 38 of 1983 decided on 19th January, 1984) is printed below :-] COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX v. AGRA FOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD. R. B. LAL, J. - This revision by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. is directed against the judgment and order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench, dated 12th October, 1982, in so far as it relates to question of inter-State sales by the assessee under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act (briefly the Act). The assessee-opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of oil and oil cakes, besides some other business, which is not relevant for the present revision. The assessee-opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of oil and oil cakes, besides some other business, which is not relevant for the present revision. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee disclosed some inter-State sales and some consignment sales in respect of oil, for purposes of the Act. The assessing authority did not accept the consignment sales and treated them as inter-State sales and determined sales tax accordingly. The assessee appealed, but the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, also did not accept the contention of the assessee with regard to the consignment sales. The assessee preferred second appeal and contended that it had made consignment sales worth Rs. 1,73,694.66, and the same were not liable to Central sales tax. The assessee produced account books before the Tribunal and explained the reason for delay in producing them. The assessee also explained the reasons why declarations in form F could not be made. The Tribunal accepted the explanations and the affidavit given in their support and held that the sales in question were consignment sales and not inter-State sales. It, therefore, allowed relief to the assessee with regard to the consignment sales. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, has not felt satisfied and filed this revision. The following two questions of law have been raised in this revision : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Sales Tax Tribunal was justified to hold that the sales worth Rs. 1,73,694.66 are not inter-State sales although no forms F were produced even before Tribunal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned Sales Tax Tribunal was justified to hold that the sales worth Rs. 1,73,694.66 are sales on consignment basis even though 'sale account' was not produced either before the assessing authority or before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for verification of its correctness ?" I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sub-section (1) of section 6-A of the Act exempts consignment sales from Central sales tax but placed the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of the goods was made in that manner and it was not an inter-State sale. This sub-section also provides that the dealer may furnish to the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time. This sub-section also provides that the dealer may furnish to the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time. Rule 12(5) prescribes that form which is in form F. The form shows that the declaration is to be furnished by the transferee to the transferor and thereafter it has to be submitted to the assessing authority. The question which arises for consideration is whether submission of declaration in form F is the only method by which a dealer may discharge the burden which lies on him under sub-section (1) of section 6-A, or can be discharged that burden by adducing some other reliable evidence. There is nothing either in section 6-A or in rule 12 to indicate that form F is intended by the legislature to be the only method of discharging the burden that lies on the dealer. No other provision of law has been brought to my notice which may indicate that declaration in form F is the only method which has to be adopted by the dealer to discharge the burden which lies on him. In my view the provision for furnishing a declaration in form F is only an enabling provision and it does not exclude other modes of discharging the burden. In this connection reference may also be made to a circular letter dated, New Delhi, 22nd January, 1974, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to all the Finance/Revenue Secretaries of all State Governments and the Union Territories. This circular has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the assessee-opposite party. In this circular the provision regarding declaration in form F has been considered, and, inter alia, it has been said : "In other words, the dealer will have the option to discharge the onus to the satisfaction of the sales tax authorities in any other manner." Thus, the legal position is that the dealer can discharge the burden which lies upon him under sub-section (1) of section 6-A by other modes as well, apart from submitting a declaration in form F to the assessing authority. The assessee did not produce the sale accounts of the disputed sales before the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority. It produced the accounts for the first time before the Tribunal and gave reasons for the delay. The assessee did not produce the sale accounts of the disputed sales before the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority. It produced the accounts for the first time before the Tribunal and gave reasons for the delay. Explanation for not submitting declarations in form F at the relevant points of time was also given. An affidavit was also filed in support of the explanations. In my view, the Tribunal could in its discretion accept this material for consideration. However, I think that where an assessee produces evidence for the first time before the Tribunal, then the department must be provided with adequate opportunity to verify that material and produce evidence or material in rebuttal, if necessary. What will be the nature of that opportunity will depend on the kind of evidence and material produced before the Tribunal, and other circumstances. In this connection a reference may be made to sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act. This sub-section provides that where a dealer submits a declaration in form F, the assessing authority may make enquiries to verify the correctness of the declaration and may accept the declaration. The assessee should not be allowed to take the department by surprise by producing evidence at a late stage; and, therefore, the department should get adequate opportunity to verify the correctness of the material produced and also to give evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. In some cases a cross-examination of the assessee may be enough, but this should be left to the discretion of the department. In the instant case, the department cannot complain of lack of opportunity. It did not controvert the affidavit and also did not pray to cross-examine the deponent or any partner of the assessee. It also did not pray to adduce evidence in rebuttal. By this I do not mean to say that no opportunity is to be given to the department unless asked for. The better course would be to give an opportunity to the department as a matter of course to verify the material and produce evidence or material in rebuttal. In the instant case, the Tribunal has given reasons for accepting the sale accounts and the affidavit and the explanations given by the assessee. These reasons appear to be well-founded and are a matter of appreciation of the material placed before it. In the instant case, the Tribunal has given reasons for accepting the sale accounts and the affidavit and the explanations given by the assessee. These reasons appear to be well-founded and are a matter of appreciation of the material placed before it. It cannot be said that the Tribunal was legally wrong in accepting the material which was placed before it by the assessee in order to discharge the burden which lay on it under sub-section (1) of section 6-A of the Act. On a consideration of the above material the Tribunal was justified in accepting the disputed sales as consignment sales. The answer to both the questions of law is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the result, this revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.