ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - The prayer in the Writ Petition No. 8196 of 2001 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings in T.A. No. 926/99, quash the order therein dated December 29, 2000 and further direct the second respondent to disputed transactions be exempted under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as stock transfers. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 8244 of 2001 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings in T.A. No. 927/99, quash the order therein dated December 29, 2000 and further direct the deletion of penalty imposed. In these writ petitions, the petitioner put in issue the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the authorities below in respect of the turnover of Rs. 56,26,412 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the turnover pertains to stock transfer and bringing the same as inter-State sale under the CST and levying penalty for the above said infraction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made his argument relying on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ahura Welding Electrode Mfgrs. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and also the decision of the single judge of this court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Shree Murugan Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. The former reported in [1999] 115 STC 626 and the latter in [2005] 142 STC 399. In the former case, the assessee therein was a manufacturer of sun arc electrodes, having its head office at Coimbatore and branch offices at Bangalore and Bombay. It had appointed a dealer at Bangalore and in the dealership agreement, it was stated, inter alia, that the supply of material would be effected from the Bangalore office, the stocks transferred to the Bangalore office were transferred under the cover of form 27, Central excise gate pass, pro forma, packing note and lorry way bill in the names of the respective branches which in turn furnished form "F" declarations to the appellant's head office. The transferred stocks were shown in the stock books of the branch office. The branch office was also a dealer in the other State. The transferred stocks were shown in the stock books of the branch office. The branch office was also a dealer in the other State. The department took the view that the indents were received at the head office of the petitioner at Coimbatore which acknowledged the same and therefore any movement of goods subsequent to the date of the indent must be regarded as movement occasioned by the indent, and hence the transactions were inter-State sales and taxable, which has been rejected by the court by giving reasons. The latter case is that under sub-section (1) of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and form "F" prescribed in rule 12(5) and the first proviso thereto, there is no need that all the agencies should necessarily be evidenced by a document in writing. But upon perusing the materials, I find how these judgments are relevant to the facts of the case. The finding arrived at by the highest fact-finding authority was to the effect that form "F" was filed by the appellant in respect of the transactions. Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act stipulates that the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the particular movement of the goods has been occasioned other than as a result of sale and to discharge this burden the modes of proof are (i) production of form F and (ii) evidence of despatches. It is well-settled law that once the particulars contained in form "F" are false, the transactions are treated as deemed sales. The Tribunal has given a reasoning that the lower authorities were convinced of the correctness of these claims with reference to the records produced. Even at the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced copies of the records. The scrutiny of form "F" filed before the Tribunal would reveal that the goods which were sent were only semifinished goods, whereas the corresponding invoices revealed that the goods transferred were finished goods. This serious infraction has been taken note of. That apart, the form "F" did not contain the details of the movement of records. On the above said infraction, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, which in the opinion of the court requires no interference. This serious infraction has been taken note of. That apart, the form "F" did not contain the details of the movement of records. On the above said infraction, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, which in the opinion of the court requires no interference. So far as the imposition of penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2A) of the CST Act, of course the turnover was made known to the respondents by claiming the transactions as a stock transfer. But that exemption has been deliberately claimed when the transaction is not true by filing a false declaration in form "F". Hence, while exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court is of the view that the jurisdiction has to be exercised judicially when the exercise of jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable. A person who invokes the discretionary equitable jurisdiction must come to the court with equity. When the petitioner lacks equity, he cannot expect a equitable order before this court. The writ petitions are dismissed on the above terms. No costs.