JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this Court for opinion : 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no contract of sale between the branch office of the respondent and the customers in another State ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the transactions for sale of goods aggregate price of Rs. 18,41,814 during the period October 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969 did not amount to "sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce" as contemplated under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and were merely "branch transfers" from one State to another ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in directing and/or allowing the respondent to lead additional evidence by filing an affidavit showing the mode and manner in which sales in question were effected, instead of deciding the appeal in the light of the material on record of the case, and relying on the said affidavit at the late stage of second appeal, instead of considering the material already on record of the case ? 2. The material facts of the case are as follows : The respondent-dealer is a manufacturer of corks and it also undertakes job-work. It has branches outside the State of Maharashtra. In some cases the branches receive contract notes from different parties indicating the goods required by them. In some cases the orders are placed to the branch orally. In certain cases the branches prepare a pro forma invoices indicating the quantity and the value of different goods required by the customers and on the basis of such requests from the branches, goods are supplied. In some cases goods were even separately packed as to meet the requirement of a particular customer and sent to the concerned branch under separate railway receipt or truck receipt. 3. In some cases goods were even separately packed as to meet the requirement of a particular customer and sent to the concerned branch under separate railway receipt or truck receipt. 3. During the assessment for the period from October 1, 1967 to September 30, 1968 and October 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969 and October 1, 1969 to September 30, 1970 the respondent-dealer transferred the goods to its branches outside the State of Maharashtra and claimed the same as not being liable to Central sales tax, the same being stock transferred to its branches. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held that the goods in question were sent to its branches in pursuance of its sale and as such were inter-State sales within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The order of the Sales Tax Officer was affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The respondent-dealer appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent-dealer and held that the goods were sent to the branch offices not in pursuance of any contract of sale within the branch offices and the movement of goods from the Bombay head office of the respondent-dealer to its branches were not in pursuance of its sales but the goods were despatched to replenish and stocks of the branches. The Tribunal also asked the respondent-dealer to file an affidavit stating the modus operandi of the respondent-dealer in respect of the disputed transaction and the relevant facts relating thereto. Accordingly an affidavit was filed by Shri R. V. Subbaiah who was attending the sales tax matters of the respondent-dealer. The Tribunal after considering the various documents on record and various affidavits held that the impugned transactions were not sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and were branch transfers. Hence this reference at the instance of die Commissioner of Sales Tax. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the findings of the Tribunal that the goods were despatched to the branches of the respondent-dealer in the usual course as stock transfers and not in pursuance of any contract of sale between the branches and the prospective customers is a pure finding of fact which is based on material on record. We do not find any infirmity in the same. We do not find any infirmity in the same. In that view of the matter, the first two questions are to be answered in the negative and in favour of the dealer. So far as the third question is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in this action of the Tribunal in directing the respondent-dealer to file an affidavit setting out the modus operandi of the transaction in question. We also do not find any provision of law which prohibits the Tribunal in doing so. Hence we answer the third question also in the negative and in favour of the dealer. This reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.