JUDGMENT 1. 1. These two revision petitions filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated 24.11.2004 raise the important question as to whether the Commissioner by his circular can fix the time limit of 10 days or 30 days and thereafter lay down the guidelines for the assessing authorities in the State to hold that there was a constructive delivery of goods to the purchasing dealer even if no physical delivery of goods is taken and thus, to deny the exemption of tax from CST on subsequent sales made by such dealers by transfer of documents of title to the goods made under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. It may be stated here that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (1) Guljag Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2003) 129 STC 3 (Raj.) decided the controversy by a detailed judgment and inter alia held that there was no question of any notional or constructive delivery to the appellant in that case under Section 6(2) of the CST Act and the Tax Board referring to the said judgment allowed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, the Revenue has filed these revision petitions before this Court. 3. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that in view of the circulars issued by the Commissioner, namely Kar Niti Paripatra-1997 dated 16.9.1997, the assessing authority was justified in drawing the inference of constructive delivery of the goods to the dealer and therefore, the inter-State sales made by dealer by transfer of documents of title to the goods could not be held to be exempt from tax under Section 6(2) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the dealer had submitted the declaration Forms 'C' from the purchasing dealers, supported by Form E-1 also. He relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of (2) Arjan Dass Gupta & Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi (1980) 45 STC 52 (Del.). 4. As against this, Mr. He relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of (2) Arjan Dass Gupta & Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi (1980) 45 STC 52 (Del.). 4. As against this, Mr. Vivek Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Guljag Industries Ltd. (supra) and submitted that the circulars issued by the learned Commissioner were ultra vires and were in conflict with the provisions of Section 6(2) of the CST Act and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Guljag Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and the same deserved to be quashed by this Court. 5. It would be appropriate first to reproduce the provisions of Section 6 of the CST Act relevant to the controversy involved in the present case: "6. Liability to tax on inter-State sales.-[(1)[ subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, every dealer shall, with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, not being earlier than thirty days from the date of such notification, be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales [of goods other than electrical energy] effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified. [Provided that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act on any sale of goods which, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5, is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India.] [(1A) A dealer shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on a sale of any goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce notwithstanding that no tax would have been leviable (whether on the seller or the purchaser) under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if that sale had taken place inside that State.] [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), 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 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 the Government, if the goods are of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, shall be exempt from tax under this Act: Provided that no such subsequent sale shall be exempt from tax under this sub-section unless the dealer effecting the sale furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may for sufficient cause, permit, (a) a certificate duly filled and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained form the prescribed authority; and (b) if the subsequent sale is made (i) to a registered dealer, a declaration referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 8, or (ii) to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 8 : Provided further that it shall not be necessary to furnish the declaration or the certificate referred to in clause (b) of the preceding proviso in respect of a subsequent sale of goods, if, (a) the sale or purchase of such goods is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or is subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than [four per cent], (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name); and (b) the dealer effecting such subsequent sale proves to the satisfaction of the authority referred to in the preceding proviso that such sale is of the nature referred to in clause (A) or clause (b) of this sub-section.] 6. The Delhi High Court in the case of Arjan Dass Gupta & Bros. (supra) has held as under : Held, (i) that the sales made by the dealer were first sales by an importer after the goods were imported in Delhi and the words "at the point of sale by the importer.... after import in the said territory" occurring in the notification dated 18th January, 1963, clearly suggested that the physical presence of the goods in the Union Territory of Delhi at the time of the sale was the decisive consideration in the matter of tax liability. Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the Central Act did not permit a purchaser from the dealer to "expand the movement" of goods beyond the time of the physical landing of the goods in the Union Territory of Delhi. Therefore, where the documents of title were transferred after coal had landed in Delhi all sales thereafter were intra-State within Delhi. Accordingly, the first sale by the importer-dealer was an intra-State sale within Delhi liable to sales tax under Section 2(g) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Union Territory of Delhi.". 7. It would be also relevant to reproduce the two circulars issued by the Commissioner, Commercial taxes Department, lying down the guidelines about constructive delivery of goods relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court. The first circular in this regard was issued by the Commissioner on 16.9.1997 (S.No. 1115B) which is reproduced hereunder: S.No. 1115B : CCT Circular F.11(3)/CST/Tax/CCT/97/1563 dated 16.9.1997 As you are aware of the fact that to avoid multiple taxation of goods sold by transfer of documents of title to the goods in their single movement from one State to another, provisions for exemption of such transaction are embodied in Section 6(2), CST Act, 1956. It appears that application of this provision has been made more or less mechanical by the assessing authorities in as much as on furnishing form E-I/E-II and C forms without looking into the material facts regarding single inter-State movement of such goods, benefits are conferred to such dealers. If the movement of the goods from one State to another terminates, the subsequent sales will be treated as intra-State sales and benefit of the above sub-section (2) of Section 6 will not be available in such cases. If the movement of the goods from one State to another terminates, the subsequent sales will be treated as intra-State sales and benefit of the above sub-section (2) of Section 6 will not be available in such cases. It is found that trade is often claiming large exemptions under this provision, particularly in respect of paper, dyes and chemicals, etc. It is, therefore, directed that all the assessing authorities, should specifically examine the nature of transactions before granting benefit under the said section. It may be argued that in view of the Explanation I to Section 3 of the CST Act, 1956, inter-State movement of goods continues until the consignee obtains physical delivery of goods from the carrier, after arrival of these goods at the destination. This argument is based on the incorrect notion that "delivery" in the Explanation means only "physical delivery". This argument can be countered on the basis of the well settled proposition of "constructive delivery". The material fact to be looked into by the assessing authorities while granting benefit of Section 6(2) of the CST Act, relate to the termination of the movement of goods in the inter-State transactions. If after arrival of the goods at the destination, the consignee asks the transporter expressly or impliedly, to retain the goods at his godown until further directions, then the carrier ceases to hold the goods as transporter, and in the eyes of law, the goods are as much in possession of the consignee as if he had taken them into his own godown. As per the settled legal concept this sequence of events tantamounts to constructive delivery of the goods by transporter to the consignee and transit ends. Any sale by the consignee thereafter will be local sale and benefit of Section 6(2) will not be available. The transporters, whether Railways or Roadways, impose condition of delivery of goods transported through them at the destination usually within ten days and the consignee is required to check up with such transporting agency as to the arrival of the goods. In these circumstances, if the carrier retains the goods for an extended period, then there is a clear inference that the consignee was aware of the arrival of his goods and the transporter is holding the goods on his behalf as a bailee for the consignee. In these circumstances, if the carrier retains the goods for an extended period, then there is a clear inference that the consignee was aware of the arrival of his goods and the transporter is holding the goods on his behalf as a bailee for the consignee. These factual matrix leads to the conclusion that there is a local sale and not sale under said Section 6(2). Payment of warehouse rent/demurrage charges by the consignee to the transporter is conclusive evidence that transporters have assumed the role of bailee and transit having ended. It may be observed that bailment can be either gratuitous or for remuneration or partially both. In law, there can also be bailment without contract. As per legal position, 'transit' gets over as soon as a reasonable time elapses for the consignee to elect whether he would take the goods away or leave them in the transporters premises, because at the conclusion of reasonable time there is deemed to be a constructive delivery of goods from the transporters to the consinee. If a dealer claims that the had not obtained the delivery of goods, the burden of proving that the goods really remained with the carrier from the date of their arrival till the date of their clearance is on the dealer. If the dealer fails to furnish this proof, then the assessing authority would be justified in concluding that the dealer had himself taken physical delivery of the goods from the carrier and thereby disallowing his claim of exemption under Section 6(2), CST Act. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Arjun Dass Gupta and Bros. v. Commer. of Sales Tax, New Delhi, (1980) 45 STC 52 , lays down the basic guidelines regarding exemption of sales under Section 6(2), CST Act. The Delhi High Court had held that Explanation I to Section 3(b) of the CST Act, 1956 did not permit the dealer to expand the movement of goods beyond the time of physical landing of the goods in the Union Territory of Delhi. As to the knowledge except this there are no other directly relevant or contra judgment reported from any other High Court. It is understood that Special Leave Petition is pending in the Supreme Court on the issue but there is no stay. As such Delhi High Court judgment holds the field. As to the knowledge except this there are no other directly relevant or contra judgment reported from any other High Court. It is understood that Special Leave Petition is pending in the Supreme Court on the issue but there is no stay. As such Delhi High Court judgment holds the field. It is therefore, enjoined upon the assessing authorities that in future they should not grant the benefit of exemption under Section 6(2), CST Act, simply on furnishing of the Form E-I/E-II and C Form. If on the contrary, it is found that assessee had taken physical delivery or the goods remained with the transporter beyond a reasonable time looking to the facts and circumstances of each case, the doctrine of constructive delivery should be invoked and action be taken accordingly. 8. Thereafter, by a subsequent circular dated 15.4.1998 (S. No. 1132A), the learned Commissioner of the Department issued the following circular, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: S.No. 1132A : CCT Circular F.11(3) CST/Tax/CCT/61 dated 15.4.1998 It may be recalled that vide circular dated 16.9.1997 [S.No. 1115B], instructions were issued clarifying therein the legal position of granting benefits under Section 6(2) of the CST Act, 1956. It has been clarified that the concept of constructive delivery shall also be invoked while determining when the transit comes to an end. It was also clarified that the Railways or Roadways usually impose conditions of delivery of goods transported by them at the destination within 10 days and the consignee is required to check up with such transporting agency as to the arrival of the goods. In view of this, it was desired by the above referred circular that the AAs should ascertain the fact that whether the goods remained with the transporter beyond reasonable time. Looking to the facts and circumstances of each case, the doctrine of constructive delivery should be invoked and action be taken accordingly. The representatives of various associations of trade and industry had brought to the notice that in almost all cases the AAs are invoking the doctrine of constructive delivery in a mechanical manner immediately after ten days of arrival of the goods at the destination. As per these Associations, this approach has resulted in hardship to the dealers and avoidable harassment is being caused to them with adverse effect on the trade. They have requested of increasing this limit. As per these Associations, this approach has resulted in hardship to the dealers and avoidable harassment is being caused to them with adverse effect on the trade. They have requested of increasing this limit. Keeping in view these factual aspects and the discussions at the Govt. level, it is reiterated that the reasonability of the time should be looked into after analysing the facts and circumstances of each case and the usual period of treating constructive delivery which may even extend upto thirty days instead of ten days as suggested in the above referred circular. Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) should ensure that, while ensuring the State revenue, no harassment shall be caused to the dealers by enthusiastic assessing authorities while determining the end of transit. Ed. Note : Also see Tax Board decision dated 8.3.1996 reported as (1996) 20 RTJS 311 C.T.O. v. Bhagwan Dass & Sones (TBSB) which does not support this Circular. Also see Tamil Nadu CCT Circular No. Acctts cell 111/140 printed in (1993) 90 STC Circulars and Clarifications page 5, which analyses the legal position. 9. Turning to the decision of the Division Bench of this court wherein the learned Division Bench agreeing with the view of the Allahabad High Court in (3) Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Sales Tax (1981) TLR 3101 (All.) where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court took a different view than the one expressed by the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dass Gupta's case (supra), in the case of Guljag Industries Ltd. (supra) in para 27 to 31 held as under: 27. The department has heavily relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dass Gupta & Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 45 STC 52 . The assessee M/s. Arjan Dass Gupta was engaged in the business of selling coal, imported from Bihar/Bengal to retailers in the Union Territory of Delhi. During the assessment year 1964-65, procurement of coal from the collieries outside Delhi and its sale in Delhi was regulated by the Delhi Coal Control Order, 1963, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The assessee used to place orders on colliery owners in Bengal/Bihar for the purchase of coal. The railway receipts for the consignments of coal used to be in the name of the dealer as consignee (freight to pay) for desatch to Delhi. The assessee used to place orders on colliery owners in Bengal/Bihar for the purchase of coal. The railway receipts for the consignments of coal used to be in the name of the dealer as consignee (freight to pay) for desatch to Delhi. The invoices covering the cost of coal dispatched and the sales tax under the Central Act charged by the colliery owners on the consignments of coal despatched to Delhi also used to be in the name of dealer. On arrival of the consignments, the dealer used to present the railway receipts before the civil supplies authorities for endorsement on the railway receipts, which permit the import of coal within the Union Territory of Delhi under the provisions of notification issued under the Essential Commodities Act. The railway receipts so endorsed by the civil supplies authorities used to he endorsed by the assessee in favour of the purchasing retailers in Delhi. The actual delivery of the coal wagons in Delhi used to be taken by the purchasing retailers on payment of railway freight to the railway authorities. The landed cost of coal used to be paid to the dealer by the purchasing retailers which included the cost of coal, the Central sales tax and the dealer's profit. The court held that where the documents of title were transferred after the coal had landed in Delhi or the sales thereafter were intra-State sales within Delhi. The court further held that the sales in question did not fall under Section 3(b) read with Explanation I of the CST Act. This case also has no application to the facts of the case, as it pertains to the essential commodities and further that it does not deal with the question of subsequent sale. The High Court also has not taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Iron and Steel's case [1960] 11 STC 655; AIR 1961 SC 65 . Therefore, this case is of no help to the department. 28. A division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Commissioner, 1981 TLR 3101 , did not agree with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dass Gupta's case [1980] 45 STC 52. Therefore, this case is of no help to the department. 28. A division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Karam Chand Thappar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Commissioner, 1981 TLR 3101 , did not agree with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in Arjan Dass Gupta's case [1980] 45 STC 52. Dealing with Section 3(b) read with Explanation I, the court held that a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, if effected by the transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to the other, shall be deemed to be an inter-State sale. The court found that the starting point of the movement is delivery of the goods to the carrier or bailee for transmission and the point of termination is when the goods are taken delivery of from the carrier or such bailee. The division Bench held that the Explanation contains a deeming clause and the fiction so created is to be taken to its logical conclusion. The court further held that if sale or purchase is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during such movement of the goods, it shall be treated as an inter-State sale. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. 29. The assertion of the department to the effect that there was constructive delivery of the goods at the branch office of the appellant is on the basis of stock entries in the daily sales register and preparation of invoices/delivery of challans favoring the subsequent buyers. In this regard, Explanation I provides the clue. It defines commencement of the movement of goods and their termination and, as such, it overrides any other concept regarding commencement and termination of movement of goods for the purpose of Section 3(b). We do not find anything in the language of the Explanation I, which may indicate that the movement of the goods contemplated therein would terminate on the basis of constructive delivery being presumed on account of certain entries. The delivery contemplated is only actual delivery and till such delivery is taken by the buyer from the transporter, the movement of goods continues. The delivery contemplated is only actual delivery and till such delivery is taken by the buyer from the transporter, the movement of goods continues. It cannot be disputed that the subsequent sale has been effected by endorsing the documents of title during the course of inter-State movement of the goods. The goods were delivered to SRF Limited at Bhiwadi as per the bilties and the said SRF Limited took delivery from the transporter. One of the invoices produced before us shows the name of the consignor as Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals, Baroda, and the name of the consignee is Guljag Industries Limited, Jodhpur. The goods are to be delivered at SRF Limited, Bhiwadi. It also gives the MTRNR No. 5235 dated March 2, 1998. The tanker's number is GJ9V-1807. On the back of the invoice, there is an endorsement made by the manager of the appellant to deliver the goods at SRF Limited, Bhiwadi. Another receipt dated March 4, 1998 shows that the liquid chlorine bearing MTR/VR No. 5235 dated 2, 1998 was delivered at Bhiwadi. It carries the same tanker No. GJ9V-1807. It clearly shows that the movement did not terminate earlier on account of the appellant's endorsement of documents of title or on account of making entries, invoice, challan, etc. So far as the entry in the daily sales report and the preparation of the invoices/delivery challans favouring the subsequent buyers is concerned, it appears to be on account of the first inter-State in the appellant's favour involving in the transaction. Thus, on this basis alone, no presumption of constructive delivery can be drawn. When the appellant effected subsequent inter-State sale by endorsing the documents of title forthwith and accordingly, the transporter who brought the goods from outside State took the goods to the subsequent buyers, who obtained delivery thereof there is no question of any notional or constructive delivery to the appellant. The appellant did not take delivery of goods. Inter-State movement of goods continued and terminated only upon taking delivery of goods by subsequent buyers. The appellant did not take delivery of goods. Inter-State movement of goods continued and terminated only upon taking delivery of goods by subsequent buyers. Thus, it emerges from the facts that - (i) The chemicals have been booked with the transporter by the appellant Guljag Industries for destination to Bhiwadi to be delivered to SRF Limited on the instructions and on account of the appellant; (ii) in respect of all transactions in question, the appellant did not take physical/actual delivery of goods from the transporter at any time during the course of inter-State movement; (iii) The transporter had given delivery to the ultimate buyer in whose favour, goods receipts/bilties were endorsed by the appellants; (iv) The said goods merely passed through the areas where the appellant's branches/head office are located and they were carried to the destination of the subsequent buyers in that very vehicle in which they were brought from Gujarat by the same transporter. Thus factually, the movement of goods continued and the transporter also contained to carry goods as transporter. 30. Consequently, the inference of constructive delivery raised in the instant case by the assessing authority, which is the sole basis for refusing the exemption, is patently illegal. 31. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 51(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, goods are deemed to be in transit from the time they are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for transmission to the buyer until the buyer takes delivery of them from such carrier or other bailee. In terms of Section 51(3) of the said Act, transit comes to an end when after arrival of the goods, the carrier or bailee acknowledges to the buyer that he holds goods on his behalf, i.e., there is an agreement between a carrier and the buyer by which carrier undertakes to hold goods from consignee not as a carrier but as his agent. There is a mutual agreement to the change of character distinct from the original contract of carriage. So long as the goods are in the hands of carrier/transporter, they are not and they cannot be in the actual and/or constructive possession of the purchaser, despite their reaching at the destination and/or even the destination of the buyer/purchaser. There is a mutual agreement to the change of character distinct from the original contract of carriage. So long as the goods are in the hands of carrier/transporter, they are not and they cannot be in the actual and/or constructive possession of the purchaser, despite their reaching at the destination and/or even the destination of the buyer/purchaser. After arrival of the goods at the destination, the delivery of goods takes place when the same are delivered to the buyer and/or his agent. This is actual or physical delivery. However, when carrier agrees to hold goods for the purchasers, which means that there comes into existence an agreement between the carrier and the buyer to that effect by agreeing to hold goods not as carrier but as an agent of the buyer, there may be constructive delivery and transit may come to an end. It is not the department's case. The only basis is making of entries, invoice, challan, etc., by the appellant for records and accounting purposes. The appellant witkout taking delivery of goods effected subsequent inter-State sales by endorsing bilities in favour of the subsequent buyers which resulted in transfer of property in goods during the course of inter-State movement. Further the fact that the subsequent buyers obtained delivery from the same transporter on or about the same day, clinches the point of termination of movement in terms of Section 3(b) of the CST Act. Thus, the appellant's act, viz., making of entries in the records, making of invoices, challans, etc., being factum of endorsement for accounting and record purposes cannot be construed as resulting in constructive delivery in any manner. Thus, we conclude that all the subsequent sales effected by the appellant during the course of inter-State movement of the subject goods are exempt in terms of Section 3(b) and Section 6(2) of the CST' Act. The subject sales is governed by the CST Act and, therefore, beyond the scope of the RST Act. The proceedings initiated by the authorities under the RST Act are wholly without jurisdiction and without authority of law." 10. The subject sales is governed by the CST Act and, therefore, beyond the scope of the RST Act. The proceedings initiated by the authorities under the RST Act are wholly without jurisdiction and without authority of law." 10. Thus, the Division Bench of this Court distinguished the decision of Delhi High Court in Arjan Dass Gupta's case (supra) vide para 27, which is the very basis and foundation of the circular issued by the learned Commissioner and which has formed the foundation of the impugned ,assessment order imposing the tax on the assessee denying the exemption of subsequent sales made under Section 6(2) of the CST Act complying with the conditions stipulated therein namely furnishing of declaration Forms 'C' and Form E-1 prescribed under Rule 12(4). As a matter of fact, the circulars issued by the learned Commissioner, which are directly in conflict with the Division Bench judgment of this court, deserved to be quashed by this Court, but since they appear to have not been cited or brought to the notice of the Division Bench in Guljag Industries Ltd.'s case (supra), they were not dealt with by the Division Bench in that matter. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the concept of constructive delivery is not at all relevant for the purpose of giving exemption from tax under Section 6(2) of the CST Act. The condition stipulated for giving such exemption from CST are contained in Section 6(2) of the Act itself, namely furnishing of declaration prescribed under Section 8(4) of the CST Act and certificate under Rule 12 in Form E-1 and E-2 prescribed under.the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1956. There is no place of any intendment in taxing statutes therefore, concept of constructive delivery could not be imported into the realm of conditions for grant of exemption under Section 6(2) of the CST Act. Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the CST Act also clearly stipulates that the movement of the goods for the purpose of clause (b) shall be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery of goods to the carrier or the bailee for transmission and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from the carrier or bailee. Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the CST Act also clearly stipulates that the movement of the goods for the purpose of clause (b) shall be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery of goods to the carrier or the bailee for transmission and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from the carrier or bailee. The Division Bench of this Court in Guljag Industries Ltd's case referring to Section 51(2) and 51(3) of the Sale of Goods Act dealing with constructive delivery, clearly held that transit comes to an end when after arrival of the goods, the carrier or bailee acknowledged to the buyer that he holds goods on his behalf, i.e., there is an agreement between a carrier and the buyer by which carrier undertakes to hold goods from consignee not as a carrier but as his agent. There is a mutual agreement to the change of character distinct from the original contract of carriage. So long as the goods are in the hands of carrier/transporter, they are not and they cannot be in the actual and/or constructive possession of the purchaser, despite their reaching at the destination and/or even the destination of the buyer/purchaser. No such agreement to change the character of original contract of carriage has been shown in the present case either. 12. Therefore, the proposition of law by the learned Commissioner in the impugned circulars that "as per legal position, 'transit' gets over as soon as a reasonable time elapses for the consignee to elect whether he would take the goods away or leave them in the transporters premises, because at the conclusion of reasonable time there is deemed to be a constructive delivery of goods from the transporter to the consignee", cannot be said to be a correct legal position. The subsequent Circular dated 15.4.1998 purportedly issued to ameliorate the situation for dealers created by previous circular dated 16.9.1997, merely ended up extending the time limit of 10 days to 30 days without undoing the damage done by the previous circular by propounding a particular view of constructive delivery. In fact, the very power to issue such circulars by the learned Commissioner giving a particular interpretation of law purportedly binding on all the assessing authorities is doubtful. In fact, the very power to issue such circulars by the learned Commissioner giving a particular interpretation of law purportedly binding on all the assessing authorities is doubtful. There is no specific provision in the Sales Tax Act, either under the RST Act or under the CST Act, empowering the Commissioner to issue such circulars, as against such powers conferred under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act on the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Even Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the highest administrative body under the Act, namely CBDT, by way of its proviso restricts and provides that no such order, instruction or direction shall be issued so as to require any Income 'Tax authority to make a particular assessment or dispose of a particular case in a particular manner and such orders or instructions shall also not interfere with the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in exercise of its appellate functions. Therefore, this court cannot countenance the issuance of such circulars by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which unduly fetter with the quasi-judicial discretion of the assessing authorities, who are expected in law to give their findings of fact and interpret the statutory law it their own quasi-judicial discretion in accordance with the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court. The circulars issued by the Commissioner in the aforesaid manner like done vide Circulars dated 16.9.1997 and 15.4.1998 are likely to hamper and throttle such quasi-judicial discretion which vests with the assessing authorities. Therefore, the aforesaid circulars issued by the Commissioner aforesaid on 15.4.1998 (S.No. 1132A) and 16.9.1997 (S.No. 1115B) are in conflict with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Guljag Industries Ltd's case (supra) and even otherwise they are found to be without any authority of law. Consequently, both the circulars are found to be ultra vires and are hereby quashed. 13. Consequently, both the circulars are found to be ultra vires and are hereby quashed. 13. In view of aforesaid, since there was no basis for the learned Commissioner to stipulate the time frame of 10 days or 30 days and thereafter, to require the assessing authority to invoke the concept of constructive delivery so as to deny the exemption of CST on subsequent sales made by transfer of documents of title to the goods made under Section 6(2) of the Act are fulfilled by the dealer and such circulars have already been held to be ultra vires and have been quashed and in absence of any other material justifying the denial of exemption under Section 6(2) of the Act to the assessee, the impugned order of the Tax Board allowing such exemption to the assessee is not required to be interfered with in the present revision petitions filed by the Revenue. 14. Consequently, these revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******