D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition by a dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short the act'] who claims to be aggrieved by the amended provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. ( 2 ) SECTION 6-A reads as under: 6-A: Burden of proof etc. , in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale [1] Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods, from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by ram to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly fitted and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods [and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale]. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of Sr. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of Sr. G. K. V. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the corresponding provision as it stood prior to this amendment enabled the persons like the petitioner to substantiate their claim that a transfer that had been effected from a place in one state to a place in another State by way of stock transfer and not one of sale was by producing supporting material in the form of a declaration by the recipient, but the present provision makes the onus of the persons like the petitioner more rigorous; that they have to now necessarily produce form-F declaration from the consignee which in turn should be issued by the prescribed authority; that this makes the task of proving that the movement of the goods is only one of stock transfer more difficult on the part of persons like the petitioner and that it can also lead to practical difficulties in effecting stock transfer which is otherwise deemed to be sale while in reality, it is not a sale; that the value cannot be determined as there is no sale; that what is sought to be taxed being transfer of stock is not sale in reality and therefore is also in violation of the constitutional provisions. ( 4 ) SECTION 6-A of the Act, if at all is a provision which is an enabling provision for persons like the petitioner to claim that it is really a stock transfer and not a sale. It enables persons like the petitioner to make good their case that the transaction is one of simple transfer and not one of sale by producing supporting material as provided. The manner in which such proof is to be produced should be in accordance with the prescribed manner as per the amended provision. The mere fact that it may make the task of persons like the petitioner a little more difficult or cumbersome, by itself cannot render the provision unconstitutional. The mere fact that it becomes little more rigorous does not change the nature of the provision as it stood earlier before the amendment and as it stands now after the amendment. The provision was one which only enabled the assessee to place commensurate material to substantiate their claim that it was not sale but a transfer. The mere fact that it becomes little more rigorous does not change the nature of the provision as it stood earlier before the amendment and as it stands now after the amendment. The provision was one which only enabled the assessee to place commensurate material to substantiate their claim that it was not sale but a transfer. In the absence of the proof to show that it was only a stock transfer, the deeming provision operates that it is only a sale in which event the tax liability arises. ( 5 ) SUCH fictions are created under the taxing statute for the purpose of preventing pilferage of revenue. When the provision creating the fiction provides for an opportunity to an assessee or a dealer to make good his case that it is only stock transfer and it is only on his failure to prove the same that the transaction is to be taken as transaction of sale, I do not find anything obnoxious in the provision which can make it unconstitutional. ( 6 ) IT is only on the assessee failing to make good that the transfer is a stock transfer, it is taken to be a sale and the object of the Act being to levy tax on inter state sales and if a dealer fails to make good his version that it is only a stock transfer, creating a fiction to treat the transaction as a sale is a provision in consonance with the object of the Act and challenge to the validity of the provisions is rejected and consequently, writ petition is rejected. ( 7 ) THOUGH Sr. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the petition should be examined at least for interpreting the provisions of Section 6a of the Act, it is not necessary for this Court to look into the matter unless the matter comes up for examination in a proper manner and then brought to this Court. A question of interpretation does not arise at this stage as this court does not examine the assessment order for the purpose of interpreting the provision when the matter can go through various statutory authorities. Prayer for declaration or prayer for interpreting the provision in any particular manner is also rejected. A question of interpretation does not arise at this stage as this court does not examine the assessment order for the purpose of interpreting the provision when the matter can go through various statutory authorities. Prayer for declaration or prayer for interpreting the provision in any particular manner is also rejected. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it is open to the petitioner to pursue such other remedies as are available to it in law in respect of action taken by the respondents.