JUDGMENT MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI, J. - This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal against an order passed by Ruma Pal, J., on April 15, 1993, directing the appellants to issue the necessary declaration forms in form C and certificate forms E-I and E-II to the writ petitioners M/s. Joshi Jute Corporation and another as prayed for in a writ petition by which they challenged the impugned order dated November 30, 1992, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Radhabazar Charge. The learned single Judge quashed the impugned order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated November 30, 1992, by order dated April 15, 1993. The respondents Joshi Jute Corporation and another are dealers in jute hessian cloth, jute twine, DW, tarpaulin canvas, sackings, rags, etc.. and placed order upon M/s. Dalhousie Jute Mills for sale of certain bales of jute goods. Under instruction of the respondents the jute goods was delivered to a party at Kerala and the transaction became, according to the appellants an inter-State transaction. The respondents M/s. Joshi Jute Corporation and another claimed that under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 3 of the said Act, the sale by the respondents M/s. Joshi Jute Corporation and another is exempted from payment of tax under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) where a sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade and/or commerce has either occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, any subsequent sale during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods (a) to the Government or (b) to a registered dealer other than Government, if the goods are of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, shall be exempted from tax under this Act. It has been provided that the dealer effecting such subsequent sale shall prove to the satisfaction of the authority that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (B) of this sub-section. Mr. It has been provided that the dealer effecting such subsequent sale shall prove to the satisfaction of the authority that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (B) of this sub-section. Mr. Dutta appearing for the appellants-State of West Bengal and others contended that it is evident that in order to claim exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce must occasion the movement of such goods from one State to another or the sale has been effected by a transfer of document of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, which are conditions precedent for getting exemption for subsequent sale during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods. In the present case the occasioning of sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce has not yet been proved and the occasioning of the movement of such goods from one State to another by transfer of documents of title during their movement from one State to another has also not been established and therefore the question of exemption as "subsequent sale" does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Commercial Tax Officer, whose order was quashed by the trial court, held on November 30, 1992 that, (i) on demand the dealer did not produce the copy of consignment notes nor it has produced any evidence in respect of transfer of documents of title to the goods; (ii) actually all the requirements by which a sale could be claimed as subsequent sale as per section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 6(2) of the said Act, are completely absent in all the sales claimed by the dealer under section 6(2) of the said Act; (iii) the dealer is liable to pay 4 per cent. tax as per returns filed on Rs. 22,20,30,678 being the sales made and claimed as subsequent sales under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. tax as per returns filed on Rs. 22,20,30,678 being the sales made and claimed as subsequent sales under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellants contended that the respondent having applied for declaration "C" form and "E-I" and "E-II" forms to the Commercial Tax Officer, Radhabazar Charge, the said Commercial Tax Officer gave hearing for issue of declaration forms on November 30, 1992, as provided for under rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. Before issue of declaration forms the Commercial Tax Officer examined the returns submitted by the writ petitioners under rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules in respect of the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and for two quarters up to September 30, 1992, of the year 1992-93. No assessment was made in respect of the aforesaid period. It was found by the Commercial Tax Officer that about 95 per cent. of the sales shown in the return were claimed to be exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 3(b) of the said Act. On checking the statement of subsequent sales claimed under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act shown by the respondent-writ petitioners wherein they had claimed despatch of goods through transporter, for which the respondent-writ petitioners have mentioned the consignment note numbers and the dates, however, copy of the consignment notes were not produced. The respondent-writ petitioners were asked to produce all the copies of consignment notes by which goods were sent from West Bengal to other States. It was further asked that the respondent-writ petitioners should produce the evidence in respect of transfer of documents of title to the goods. The respondent-writ petitioners did not produce any evidence in respect of transfer of documents of title to the goods. But on the contrary the respondents made an application dated November 19, 1992, stating that no question of production of the endorsed copy of the consignment notes before the Commercial Tax Officer did arise. The Commercial Tax Officer thereupon took it that the writ petitioner-respondent was unable to produce any evidence in respect of transfer of documents of title to the goods. The Commercial Tax Officer thereupon took it that the writ petitioner-respondent was unable to produce any evidence in respect of transfer of documents of title to the goods. The Commercial Tax Officer accordingly held that the returns filed by the respondents were not correct and the entire claim for exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act were not genuine and held the respondents to be liable to pay tax at 4 per cent on all the sales claimed to be subsequent sales, the tax amounting to Rs. 85,39,461. The total amount of tax payable was found as given out hereinbefore under rule 27AA(2)(cc) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and the writ petitioner respondent was asked to pay the entire amount and the application for declaration forms was kept pending. It is against the aforesaid order dated November 30, 1992 that the writ petitioner moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India on March 18, 1993. Ruma Pal, J., as indicated earlier was pleased to hear both the sides on April 15, 1993 and by a judgment impugned quashed the order dated November 30, 1992, as passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Mr. Dutta appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by Ruma Pal, J., was basically mistaken inasmuch as the writ court proceeded upon scrutinising transactions dated October 17, 1992 which was beyond the transactions reflected in the returns for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and for two quarters up to September 30, 1992 of the year 1992-93. Hence the conclusion as arrived at by the learned single Judge proceeding on an erroneous basis, cannot be allowed to stand. Mr. Dutta further contended that the finding of the learned single Judge is that the respondent-writ petitioners sent shipping instruction to Dalhousie Jute Mills on October 21, 1992 to despatch the goods to Cochin through All India Transport Corporation. On October 24, 1992, Dalhousie Jute Mills raised invoice on the respondents towards price of the goods. On November 18, 1992 the respondent-writ petitioners raised bill on Jagannath Corporation of Kerala in respect of price of the goods. Dalhousie Jute Mills delivered the goods to transport company on the instruction of the respondent-writ petitioners on November 25, 1992. It was contended by Mr. On November 18, 1992 the respondent-writ petitioners raised bill on Jagannath Corporation of Kerala in respect of price of the goods. Dalhousie Jute Mills delivered the goods to transport company on the instruction of the respondent-writ petitioners on November 25, 1992. It was contended by Mr. Dutta that the consignee's copy of the consignment notes shows that the goods were delivered from Calcutta to Kerala and a certificate was issued by Dalhousie Jute Mills certifying that delivery had been directly effected to the Kerala purchasers (vide paper book page 86). Mr. Dutta submitted that the directions by the respondent-writ petitioners upon Dalhousie Jute Mills to supply the goods at Kerala occasioned the movement of the goods from West Bengal to Kerala, causing inter-State trade. In the present case the sale of goods was not effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods "during their movement" from one State to another nor was there any "subsequent sale" during such movement effected by transfer of title. Hence by no stretch of imagination sale to Kerala party can be said to be a sale under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act or that the sale can be said to be exempted. In this connection our attention was invited to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Ramu Bros. (Electricals) reported in [1993] 89 STC 481, paragraphs 9, 11, 12 and 16. It was held in that case that it is only if a subsequent inter-State sale is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during the movement of the goods from one State to another pursuant to an earlier inter-State sale, that such subsequent inter-State sale would be exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. If the subsequent sale is effected by any mode other than transfer of documents of title to goods, exemption under section 6(2) cannot be granted at all. N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) were dealers in generators in Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore) and they received purchase orders from customers within the State and pursuant thereto placed orders with suppliers outside the State chiefly in Delhi. The suppliers despatched the goods by road and advised N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) by post. N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) were dealers in generators in Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore) and they received purchase orders from customers within the State and pursuant thereto placed orders with suppliers outside the State chiefly in Delhi. The suppliers despatched the goods by road and advised N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) by post. On receipt of the necessary particulars of the movement of goods, N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) gave letters of authority to the transport office at Coimbatore with instructions to deliver the consignments at the purchasers' place of business. N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) used their own form XX delivery notes for onward transport of the consignments from Coimbatore to the places of business of the purchasers. The Tribunal held that the subsequent sales by N. Ramu Brothers (Electricals) to their purchasers were exempt under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On a revision petition by the department, the matter came up for a decision before the Madras High Court. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that (i) although the lorry receipts relating to transport from Delhi and other places to Coimbatore would come under the definition of the term "document of title to goods" in section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, they were not transferred to the purchasers for effecting sales in their favour as contemplated by section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. An order from the vendor to the warehouseman to deliver goods to the vendee would come under the aforesaid definition. But the delivery notes in form XX could not be taken as such delivery orders. Form XX only contained certain particulars regarding the consignor and consignee and the goods consigned. It did not contain an order as such by the vendor for delivery of the goods to the vendee. It was only meant to keep track of the movement of the goods to prevent evasion of tax and by no stretch of imagination could it be held to be a document of title within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act only a warrant or order for the delivery of the goods could be a document of title to goods. The principle enunciated in Laurie and Morewood v. John Dudin and Sons [1925] 2 KB 383 was relied upon. Under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act only a warrant or order for the delivery of the goods could be a document of title to goods. The principle enunciated in Laurie and Morewood v. John Dudin and Sons [1925] 2 KB 383 was relied upon. It was further held that the authorisation letters were only instructions given by the respondents to the carrier to deliver the goods, stating that the carrier need not deliver the goods at Coimbatore but had to deliver them to the respective purchasers at different places in Tamil Nadu and collect the delivery charges from them on delivery of the goods. However, even though these letters looked like delivery orders, they could not be considered as documents of title to goods, coming within the definition under section 2(4), because even a delivery order which had been specifically mentioned in that definition, had to satisfy the requirements mentioned in the latter part of the said definition, viz., that it was used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession or control of goods or as authorising its possessor to transfer or receive goods thereby represented. The authorisation letters could not be treated as documents of title to goods within the meaning of the said definition. Therefore, N. Ramu Brother's sales in favour of the purchasers could not be said to have been effected by transfer of documents of title to goods. Their Lordships of the Madras High Court, however, held that the invoices also did not satisfy the requirements contained in the latter part of section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act. There was no obligation on the carrier to take the goods further to any places beyond Coimbatore. The consignee, chose not to take physical delivery of the goods at Coimbatore either by itself or through its purchasers, but entered into a fresh contract for transportation of goods from Coimbatore to certain other places of the purchasers. Though physical delivery was not effected by the carrier at Coimbatore, in the above circumstances, it had to be held that notional delivery had been effected in Coimbatore pursuant to the original lorry receipts. Therefore, the movement of goods came to an end at Coimbatore at the time when the said notional delivery was effected there and so the subsequent sales by the respondents were only after the termination of such movement. Therefore, the movement of goods came to an end at Coimbatore at the time when the said notional delivery was effected there and so the subsequent sales by the respondents were only after the termination of such movement. Therefore, the exemption under section 6(2) could not be granted. It was further held that if a sale is to be exempted, it must answer the description of a second or subsequent sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce as stated above and the said sale must be effected by transfer of documents of title to goods during the movement of the goods from one State to another pursuant to an earlier inter-State sale. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court answered the question by holding, inter alia, that from section 6(2) it is clear that if the said subsequent inter-State sales are effected by any mode other than transfer of documents of title to goods, section 6(2) exemption could not be granted at all. Their Lordships then examined the question as to which document in the said case would come under the definition of the term "document of title to goods" under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act and whether the sale is effected by transfer of the said document of title to goods. No doubt, their Lordships held that the expression "sale effected by a transfer of documents of title to goods" means that title in the goods passed on to the buyer by the said transfer of documents of title to the said goods. In other words, the term "effected" denotes the aforesaid passing of title vide Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. S. R. Sarkar [1960] 11 STC 655 (SC) at page 679. It is indeed true that in all facts the said decision does not answer the description of the present one and is somewhat distinguishable on facts. In Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar v. State Trading Corporation of India Limited reported in [1972] 30 STC 451 (Pat) there was supply of iron and manganese ore by State Trading Corporation to Hindustan Steel Ltd. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., was a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and dealt in iron and manganese ore. It purchased iron ore from mine owners in Bihar on f.o.r. (free on rail) loading-station basis for selling it to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. for their units in West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. The contract between the assessee and the mine owners mentioned places outside the State of Bihar as the destinations of iron ore. Under the contract, the loading in the railway wagons was to be done by the mine owners and till such time as the goods reached the destination stations, the liability for demurrage or overloading or underloading of wagons or the goods not conforming to the specifications, remained with the mine owners. The assessee, State Trading Corporation of India Limited, claimed that the sales by the mine owners to it were inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the sales by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (the assessee) to Hindustan Steel Ltd. were subsequent inter-State sales with respect to the same goods during the same movement and as such were exempt from tax by virtue of the provisions of section 6(2) of the Act. The assessing officer did not accept the claim of exemption and held that the sale by the mine owners to the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. the assessee was inter-State sale and the sale by the assessee to Hindustan Steel Ltd. was a distinct and separate transaction. Taxable as inter-State sale. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention and directed the assessing officer to allow opportunity to the assessee to file certificates in forms E-I and E-II of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 to get the exemption. Taxable as inter-State sale. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention and directed the assessing officer to allow opportunity to the assessee to file certificates in forms E-I and E-II of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 to get the exemption. There was a reference to the Patna High Court and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court answered the reference holding, inter alia, that although the sale by the mine owners to the assessee-State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. could be deemed to have been completed at the loading station itself, the mine owners were still under an obligation to load in the railway wagons and to see that it reached the destination stations outside the State of Bihar; the loading of the goods in the wagons by the mine owners was directly and inextricably connected with the contract which the assessee had with the Hindustan Steel Ltd. to move the goods from the State of Bihar to places outside the State. Therefore, the sale by the mine owners to the assessee, was a sale in the course of inter State trade or commerce and the subsequent sale by State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (the assessee) to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. was exempt from tax under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court further held that the Tribunal was justified in giving a direction to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish the certificates in forms E-I and E-II. The Division Bench further held that notwithstanding the absence of a specific contract to send the goods outside the State, if the facts and circumstances denote that perforce the goods purchased have to be sent outside the State by the seller, such a sale would be in the course of inter-State trade. Mr. Dutta further contended that it was observed in the said case that the suppliers of ores took the responsibility of transporting the ores outside Bihar and hence the sales to Hindustan Steel Ltd. were deemed to be "subsequent sales". Mr. Chakraborty contended before us that the learned trial Judge was persuaded to quash the order of the Commercial Tax Officer for the following reasons : "(a) It may be mentioned at this stage that none of the documents disclosed by the petitioners have been questioned by the respondent-authorities, i.e., the appellants herein. Mr. Chakraborty contended before us that the learned trial Judge was persuaded to quash the order of the Commercial Tax Officer for the following reasons : "(a) It may be mentioned at this stage that none of the documents disclosed by the petitioners have been questioned by the respondent-authorities, i.e., the appellants herein. (b) In my view the sale by the petitioner to the Jagannath Corporation must be a subsequent sale. This follows from the concept of sale and the principle that no one can transfer what he does not have. The documents of title in this case would be the "consignment notes". It is not disputed that the petitioner sold the goods to the Jagannath Corporation. The documents of title had in fact been transferred. (c) The insistence on the production of the consignor's copy of the consignment note was unwarranted. (d) The impugned order has been based on a misappreciation of law. It is ex facie contradictory and cannot be sustained. (e) There is no dispute as far as facts are concerned. The only question was a question of law. (f) In my view by misconstruing the provisions of section 3 read with section 6(2) of the 1956 Act, the Commercial Tax Officer has wrongfully failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. (g) For all these reasons the writ application is allowed, the impugned order dated November 30, 1992, is quashed. The respondent-authorities are directed to issue necessary declaration forms in form C and E-II to the petitioners as prayed for." Mr. Chakraborty further contended that the demand of consignment notes and other evidence by the Commercial Tax Officer from the writ petitioner respondents to prove subsequent sale at the time of considering application for declaration forms C and E-II certificate forms is bad and illegal. Mr. Chakraborty further contended that the Commercial Tax Officer not only misconstrued the law but was also misled by irrelevant and extraneous considerations not supported by law. Mr. Chakraborty cited the following decisions in support of his contention that an interference by High Court is permissible in the writ jurisdiction : (i) Swarmal Choudhury v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1988] 71 STC 404 (Cal) (A. K. Sengupta, J.). (ii) Kishorilal Chowdhury v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1990] 79 STC 273 (Cal) (B. P. Banerjee, J.). Mr. Chakraborty cited the following decisions in support of his contention that an interference by High Court is permissible in the writ jurisdiction : (i) Swarmal Choudhury v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1988] 71 STC 404 (Cal) (A. K. Sengupta, J.). (ii) Kishorilal Chowdhury v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1990] 79 STC 273 (Cal) (B. P. Banerjee, J.). (iii) Himalaya Rubber Products Limited v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction reported in [1993] 88 STC 47 (Gal) (Ruma Pal, J). (iv) Kamal Sons v. Sales Tax Officer reported in [1986] 61 STC 23 (D. K. Kapur and Sunanda Bhandare, JJ., of the Delhi High Court). Mr. Chakraborty contended that the Commercial Tax Officer cannot demand production of endorsed copy of the consignment notes at the time of issue of declaration forms nor even at the time of assessment. His demand for production of the said consignment notes was not justified since the said consignment notes did not remain with the Joshi Jute Corporation after transfer of the documents of title of goods to the ultimate buyer outside the State by endorsement. The Act and the Rules prescribed the procedure as to how to prove and when to get exemption on subsequent sales and how the said proof is to be tendered before the Commercial Tax Officer. Mr. Chakraborty contended that section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act specifically states that on subsequent sale, exemption can be had only on production of E-I certificate issued by the Jute Mills (first seller) on receipt of C forms to Joshi Jute Corporation (first buyer) and C forms obtained from the second buyer, i.e., Jagannath Corporation who would obtain E-II certificates from Joshi Jute Corporation and also triplicate copy of the E-II forms retained by Joshi Jute Corporation after issuing the E-II certificate to the second buyer Jagannath Corporation. As to how to prove the subsequent sale at the time of assessment Mr. Chakraborty contended that E-I certificate from Jute Mills, "C" forms from Jagannath Corporation and triplicate copy of E-II certificates issued to Jagannath Corporation ought to have been looked into. Clause (6) of rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, specifically states that for proving exemption on subsequent sale, the selling dealer shall produce E-I, E-II and "C" forms at the time of assessment or within such further time as the prescribed authority may permit. Clause (6) of rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, specifically states that for proving exemption on subsequent sale, the selling dealer shall produce E-I, E-II and "C" forms at the time of assessment or within such further time as the prescribed authority may permit. Thereafter the Commercial Tax Officer's demand was in excess of his jurisdiction and against the provisions of law and as such the Commercial Tax Officer committed an error both of fact and of law. His erroneous omission resulted in the writ court exercising jurisdiction over his decision since he did fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. He referred to decision reported in [1964] 15 STC 186 (Cal); AIR 1963 Cal 409 (Division Bench) paragraph 12 (Durga Sree Stores v. Board of Revenue). By referring to another decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 2379 , paragraph 10 (M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur) Mr. Chakraborty contended that the Commercial Tax Officer turned his enquiry into something not directed by the Acts and the Rules and he failed to make the enquiry which the statute did direct him to do, As such this omission or commission rendered his purported decision a nullity. The action and/or non-action on the part of the Commercial Tax Officer might also have proceeded from a mala fide motive and he wanted to take advantage of his own wrong by withholding issue of declaration forms and E-II certificate forms. As the predecessor of the Commercial Tax Officer issued C forms and E-II certificate forms previously as would be evident from applications for C forms and E-II forms annexed to the writ petition ("pages 30 and 31 of the paper book"), the Commercial Tax Officer was bound to consider any misuse and/or abuse of the declaration forms previously issued. There was nothing laid down in rule 27A of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, which could stand on the way of the Commercial Tax Officer to issue declaration in C form and E-II certificate to Joshi Jute Corporation at the relevant time in 1992. Admittedly more than 500 forms as are referred to in the grounds of appeal incorporated in the second part of the paper book prepared by the State (at page 17 ground No. 6) are required by Joshi Jute Corporation. Admittedly more than 500 forms as are referred to in the grounds of appeal incorporated in the second part of the paper book prepared by the State (at page 17 ground No. 6) are required by Joshi Jute Corporation. No other plea can be sustained as no dispute was raised as to the documents annexed to the writ petition at the trial stage. There was no dispute in so far as the facts are concerned. The documents were several thousands in respect of transactions for the years 1988 to 1992. It was not feasible to annex all the documents in the writ petition. A complete set of documents to show the nature of all transactions were annexed. It has been stated in [paragraph 6(c), pages 7 and 8 of the paper book]. It has got nothing to do with the return period considered by the Commercial Tax Officer. To remove this doubt, Joshi Jute Corporation has annexed samples of documents in the years of transactions from 1988 to 1992. With the affidavit-in-opposition in the appeal court from pages 37 to 80 of the paper book we are able to clinch the issue that the documents and nature of transactions are similar in all the years. These documents contained contract, shipping instructions and bills and invoices of Joshi Jute Corporation with outside buyers pertaining to subsequent sales. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the following case laws to support the factum of subsequent sales : (i) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar v. State Trading Corporation of India Limited reported in [1972] 30 STC 451 (Pat), (ii) Mewa Lal Kewal Kishore v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1974] 34 STC 11O (All.), (iii) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore reported in [1976] 38 STC 551 (All.), and (iv) Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Sarathi Agencies reported in [1990] 78 STC 126 (Mad.). Mr. Chakraborty on the other hand contended that the case law as reported in [1993] 89 STC 481 (Mad.) [State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Ramu Bros. (Electricals)l had no manner of application to the facts of the case since it was a case where there was no subsequent transfer of title to the goods by endorsement on a document of title. Hence the ratio as propounded in this case is not called into play in the facts of the present one. Mr. (Electricals)l had no manner of application to the facts of the case since it was a case where there was no subsequent transfer of title to the goods by endorsement on a document of title. Hence the ratio as propounded in this case is not called into play in the facts of the present one. Mr. Chakraborty contended that in the present case pursuant to a contract, goods moved from Dalhousie Jute Mills from West Bengal to Kerala and according to section 3(b), Explanation I of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, movement of the goods shall be deemed to have commenced at the time of such delivery to a carrier and ended at the time when delivery is taken from such carrier. In the present case, after the goods were loaded in a lorry at the mills, a consignment note (annexure "C" page 37/38) which is the document of title to the goods was transferred by endorsement by the mill to the respondents. The consignment of goods was sent to Kerala by the mills as self-consignee. Joshi Jute Corporation during the movement, made a second transfer to Jagannath Corporation of Cochin by endorsement on the consignment notes in favour of Jagannath Corporation. There was no break in the movement of the goods from West Bengal to Kerala and as such the second transfer by endorsement of consignment note is a subsequent sale which is exempt from sales tax. He referred to the decision in Vinay Cotton Waste Company v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1986] 63 STC 391 where a Madras High Court Division Bench held that an inter-State sale could take place even as between dealers in the same State. Where the sale contract was entered into by the assessee with the buyer at Madras and the sale contract specifically provided that the assessee would have to arrange to transport the goods by lorry from Coimbatore to Pondicherry showing the Madras buyer as a consignor and on "to pay" basis, there was an obligation on tire part of the assessee as a seller to arrange for the transport of the goods by lorry from Coimbatore to Pondicherry showing the Madras buyer as a consignor. This clause in the sale contract under which it was the obligation of the seller to transport the goods to State would clearly attract the definition of inter-State sale in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore reported in [1976] 38 STC 551 (All.) the question arose as to whether it was an inter-State sale or intra-State sale where the goods were sent by rail to an outside State at the instance of the purchaser and the railway receipts were endorsed in favour of purchaser. The railway receipts were made in the name of the assessee who sent the foodgrains outside Uttar Pradesh. He got these railway receipts endorsed in favour of the Uttar Pradesh buyers and received the price in Uttar Pradesh. It was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that inasmuch as the goods were sent after the assessee had contracted with the Uttar Pradesh parties for despatch of the goods outside Uttar Pradesh, it would be an inter-State sale. In any event inasmuch as the railway receipts were endorsed after the goods had been handed over to the railway and there was nothing to indicate that the goods had not moved, it would be a case covered by section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was held in this case that if the contract of sale occasions the movement of the goods or the title to the goods passes while they are in movement from one State to another, the sale is not a local sale but an inter-State sale. In the said case inasmuch as the goods were sent after the dealer had contracted with the Uttar Pradesh parties for despatch of goods outside Uttar Pradesh, it would clearly be an inter-State sale. Mr. Dutta contended in reply that only raw jute is exempted from Schedule I of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and excepting raw jute, all commodities relating to jute are taxable. The real issue is as to whether the sales to Kerala party by the Joshi Jute Corporation are exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 3(b) of the said Act. The real issue is as to whether the sales to Kerala party by the Joshi Jute Corporation are exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 3(b) of the said Act. Under the instruction of the Joshi Jute Corporation at Calcutta to M/s. Dalhousie Jute Mills at Calcutta the goods were sent direct to the Kerala party Jagannath Corporation and whether such sales can be exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that where a sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has either occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another or has been effected by a transfer of document of title to such goods during the movement from one State to another, any "subsequent sale" during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods, if the goods are of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, shall be exempt from tax. Hence it is evident that sale must be in the course of inter-State trade or commerce occasioning the movement of the goods from one State to another and any "subsequent sale" during such movement effected by a transfer of document of title to such goods, shall be exempt from tax. In the present case under instruction of Joshi Jute Corporation and another to M/s. Dalhousie Jute Mills of Calcutta, the goods were delivered to the party at Kerala. The transaction becomes an inter-State transaction no doubt, but whether there is an element of subsequent sale in order to invite the exemption provided for under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, is the moot question. Mr. Chakraborty contended that before passing the order dated November 30, 1992 the Commercial Tax Officer was shown the statements and documents which ought to have been sufficient for him to construe the purported transactions as subsequent sales. The documents which were available to the Commercial Tax Officer along with the statements as desired by him at the time of considering all the applications for C forms and E-II certificate forms were contracts, shipping instructions, invoices and bills prepared by the mills as well as by Joshi Jute Corporation. The documents which were available to the Commercial Tax Officer along with the statements as desired by him at the time of considering all the applications for C forms and E-II certificate forms were contracts, shipping instructions, invoices and bills prepared by the mills as well as by Joshi Jute Corporation. From these documents it is absolutely clear that the transactions were all subsequent sales and Joshi Jute Corporation paid 4 per cent. Central sales tax to the jute mills while jute goods were purchased and in the bills of joshi Jute Corporation to the Cochin dealer, no sales tax has been charged. Therefore, a transaction which is a transaction of first inter-State sale coupled with subsequent sale, within the meaning of law as reasonably construed, cannot attract sales tax at two stages. Joshi Jute Corporation already paid sales tax 4 per cent. to the jute mills from whom goods were purchased initially and it did not realise sales tax from second buyer at Cochin. It does not attract the Central sales tax over again. The Commercial Tax Officer of the appellant State ought to have been satisfied with the documents and the statements filed which unequivocally prove the contention of the Joshi Jute Corporation that the first sale between Dalhousie Jute Mill and Joshi jute Corporation was inter-State sale by transfer of documents of title (consignment notes) and the second transfer by Joshi Jute Corporation to the Cochin dealer Jagannath Corporation by endorsement of the consignment notes is a subsequent sale which does not attract sales tax over again. Unless C forms are given by the Joshi Jute Corporation to jute mills it cannot claim E-I certificate forms from the jute mills who will issue E-I certificate forms only on receipt of C forms from the Joshi Jute Corporation. Again Joshi Jute Corporation is legally bound to issue E-II certificate to the Cochin dealer Jagannath Corporation who is to give joshi Jute Corporation C forms. Unless Joshi Jute Corporation gives E-II certificate forms to Cochin dealer, the Cochin dealer cannot get the benefit of subsequent sale at their end. Therefore, demand for further sales tax on these transactions is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. In the result the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment under appeal of the learned single Judge stands affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. VIDYA NAND, J. - I agree. Therefore, demand for further sales tax on these transactions is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. In the result the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment under appeal of the learned single Judge stands affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. VIDYA NAND, J. - I agree. Appeal dismissed.