JUDGMENT : In this batch of writ application, there is challenged to the validity of sub rule (6) of Rule 15 of the Bihar State Tex Rules, 1983 (per short the Rules) so far it requires that the challan mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (For short 'the Act') shall be in Form X. it is submitted that Form X. is ultra vires and contrary to Section 80(4)(b) of the Act. There is also challenge to the assessment order made under section 17 of the Act requiring the petitioner to pay sales tax at the rate of 4% on the value of the coal transferred from one colliery of the petitioner to another colliery belonging to the petitioner on the ground out that it constituted sale within the meaning of sale under the Act. The impugned order the dated 19.11.1996 and has been passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes (Respondent no. 5) Under Sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act a registered dealer is to maintain accounts in respect of all goods produced raised manufactured possessed brought sold or delivered or transferred by him. Sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Act in its relevant part, is as under : 30. (4) Every dealer or a person required to keep account by sub-section (1)shall (a) ….. …… …… (b) issue a challan in respect of all transfer of goods from his place of business otherwise then as a result of sale in such from as the Commissioner may by notification lay down. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 58 of the Act framed Rule in super-section of earlier Rules. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 is as under : The challan mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 30 shall be prepared in duplicate be serially machine numbered be kept in a book from and shall be only signed and dated by the clearer or his manager declared under section 15 or person in the whole time employment of the dealer : one copy of it shall be issued to the person accompanying the goods for producing on demand before any authority or Inspector appointed under section 9 and the other copy shall be returned by the dealer in a board and serially machine numbered volume. The challan shall be in Form X.” It is not necessary to set out Form X. as the contention of the petitioner has been that Form X. could have been prescribed by the State Government under the Rules as that power under sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Act has been conferred upon the Commissioner himself. It is therefore contended that the absence of Form X. prescribed as such is immaterial and could not be said that the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Act has not been met. However it could not be dispute that this Form X existed prior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules. Mrs. Chudhary learned council for the State has referred to sub-section (2) of section 59 of the Act which repealed the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 and also provided certain saving. This sub-section (2) of Section 59of the Act read as under : 59. (2) All rules orders and appointment made notification published certificates granted powers conferred and other things done under the said Act and in force on the commencement of this part shall so far as they are not inconsistent with or until they are not modified superseded of cancelled under this part be deemed to have been respectively made published granted conferred or done under this part. Then Mr. Poddar, learned council for the petitioner contended that even in the earlier Act and the Rules Form X had not been prescribed by the Commissioner but that is nowhere pleaded. In our opinion sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act would save Form X from any challenge to its validity. In this view of the matter, Mr. Podder also did not given any serious challenge to the validity of Form X. Normally the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should have been appealed against. But what we find is that the impugned order is in contradicting in terms. At one place it is stated that there has been transfer of coal from one colliery to another by the petitioner and then it is also held that stock transfer also did not appear to be proper. It is noticed that in the Registration Certificate granted to the petitioner as dealer under the Act nature of the business has been described as coal sale. It is noticed that in the Registration Certificate granted to the petitioner as dealer under the Act nature of the business has been described as coal sale. This is not the relevant consideration for the authority to take into consideration while coming to a consecution that there was any sale. Mr. Poddar says that on the value of coal so transferred from one colliery to another sale tax has been paid but the stock transfer it self could not be subjected to sales tax as there was not sale. The impugned order dose not show if the authority came to the conclusion that there was, in fact any sales tax amounting crores of rupees. Filing of an appeal would necessitate deposit of 20% of the amount of sales tax so raised of the impugned order. In the above view of the matter we set aside the impugned orders in all the writ applications and remand the matter back to the assessing authority being the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent no. 5) for him to consider the matter afresh after examining the relevant records of the petitioner and after giving the petitioner full opportunity and then arriving at a specific findings if there was any sale as per stock transfer of coal from one colliery to another of the petitioner. The writ applications are therefore allowed to the above extent and the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in all the writ application are set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondents no. 5) on 27-1-1997. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.