JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The above revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 has been filed against the order of the Tribunal delivered on January 8, 1999 in Second Appeal No. 151 of 1998 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 (Central). The facts are not much in dispute. Raising a simple question the present revision has been filed in respect of the taxability of the turnover of Rs. 14,50,762 on inter-State sale made by the dealer - opposite party by endorsement of document of title. It carriers on the business of sale and purchase of paper and board and declared inter-State sales worth Rs. 1,19,84,063.50. The assessing authority examined the account books of the dealer and found that seller sent some bilties through bank and the dealer had declared sale by transfer of document within three to four days from the date of bilty. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority as well held that on the basis of the aforesaid facts the goods were sold without endorsement of document of title. In further appeal, the Trade Tax Tribunal by the order under revision has upheld the contention of the dealer as the transaction in question is covered by form C and form EI/II. The explanation furnished by the dealer was that it got the bilty endorsed within three to four days. In the memo of revision five questions of law have been sought to be raised : 1. Whether the honourable Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that the driver's copy, transporter copy and office copy of goods receipt (i.e., G.R.) are also document of title as per definition of document of title in section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 or only the consignee copy of G.R. is the document of title ? 2. Whether the honourable Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee has no control over his banker in getting the statement of account or certificate, while the banker is under obligation to provide one copy of statement free of cost to all his customer ? 3. 2. Whether the honourable Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee has no control over his banker in getting the statement of account or certificate, while the banker is under obligation to provide one copy of statement free of cost to all his customer ? 3. Whether the honourable Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in holding that mere production of form EI and form C is sufficient to get exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the assessing authority is not justified in requiring the dealer to produce any secondary evidence to substantiate the above ? 4. Whether form EI and form C are conclusive proof of the fact that the sale under section 6(2) of the Act has been effected by transfer of document of title to goods during their movement from one State to another ? 5. Whether assessing officer is not justified to enquire that the subsequent sale under section 3(b) and section 6(2) of the Act has been effected by a transfer of document of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, if the assessee produces the prescribed form EI and form C whether production of form EI and form C restricts the right of assessing officer to enquire into the fulfilment of conditions given under the Act itself ? The main thrust of the argument of the learned standing counsel is that the judgment and order of the Tribunal is based on assumption and presumption and is conjectural. The burden was upon the dealer to prove by cogent evidence to show that the transaction took place by endorsement of document of title before the delivery of goods. In the present case, the dealer - opposite party has failed to discharge the burden and therefore, merely because form C and even form EII have been produced, no presumption with regard to the subsequent Central sale by endorsement of title could have been drawn. Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party, on the other hand, submits that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned standing counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Vijay Tractor Corporation, Bijnor [1998] UPTC 80, wherein it has been held that the burden lay upon the dealer - opposite party to establish that the transaction took place by endorsement of document of title. If the dealer has failed to establish the same, a presumption against him may be drawn. It has been held that the dealer has to prove the positive act that the goods were moved from one State to another in the course of inter-State sale and were resold during the course of such movement by transfer of document of title, therefore, it was for the dealer to transfer the document of title of the goods, namely, goods receipt and railway - receipt in favour of purchaser and it did not itself take the delivery of the goods. Coming to the facts of the present case, there is no material on record to show that the dealer - opposite party made subsequent Central sales by endorsement on document of title to goods. In the order of the Tribunal it is mentioned that time was given to the dealer - opposite party to obtain the necessary certificate from the concerned bank, but he failed to do so to show that it is dealer who retired the documents of title from the bank. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in P.A. George and Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment) I, Special Circle, Alappuzha [1998] 110 STC 253. The said decision is distinguishable and has no application to the controversy on hand. The observations quoted from the said judgment by the Tribunal in its order is out of place. The observation made therein should be read and understood in the context of the issue involved therein. The said decision is distinguishable and has no application to the controversy on hand. The observations quoted from the said judgment by the Tribunal in its order is out of place. The observation made therein should be read and understood in the context of the issue involved therein. Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 under which the dealer - opposite party is claiming subsequent sale by endorsement of documents of title requires that besides other things the subsequent sale is effected by endorsement of documents of title to the goods. It follows that mere filing of forms C, EI and EII are not sufficient to claim exemption under the aforestated section. It has to be proved as a fact that the subsequent is effected by endorsement of document of title to the goods. The Tribunal in my view approached the problem with a wrong angle. It proceeded to decide the appeal on the premises that there can be multiple documents of title to goods. The fact remains that there will be only one document of title and others may be copies thereof and such copies itself will not become the document of title to the goods. Otherwise there may be chaos in the commercial world by dishonest traders sending the bilties through bank and selling the goods through the copies of the document of title and in that situation, the bank will have no security of the amount. Section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines "document of title" which includes a bill of lading, dock-warrant, warehouse keeper's certificate wharefingers' certificate, railway receipt, warrant or order for the delivery of goods and any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods, or authorising or purporting to authorise, either by endorsement or by delivery, the possessor of the document to transfer or receive goods thereby represented. The test as to whether a particular document is a document showing title or a document of title is whether document is used in the ordinary course of business as authorising a transfer or receipt of the goods, Ramdas v. Amer Chand & Co. AIR 1916 Privy Council 7. A railway receipt is documents of title to goods under section 2(4). Official Assignee, Madras v. Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1934 PC 246 (248). AIR 1916 Privy Council 7. A railway receipt is documents of title to goods under section 2(4). Official Assignee, Madras v. Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1934 PC 246 (248). The Tribunal has noticed that the goods receipt is drawn in triplicate and one copy is handed over to the bank to collect the sale proceeds and the other two copies were handed over to the transporter and the endorsement is made on the transporter's copy, would amount to the transfer of title by endorsement. The Tribunal has failed to address the real issue involved as to whether the dealer - opposite party has proved that the subsequent sale took place by endorsement of document of title. It proceeded on the presumption and assumption that the State of Madhya Pradesh is a neighbouring State and a person may reach there within 3-4 days. It may be so but it does not mean that in the absence of any other evidence the dealer - opposite party collected the document of title from the bank and made the endorsement for transfer of goods thereon. Unless and until the evidence is produced by the dealer - opposite party that he collected the document of title from the bank, and transferred the goods, by making endorsement thereon, no inference of subsequent Central sale by endorsement of document of title can be drawn in view of the plain language of section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Whether the dealer - opposite party has control over the bank or not is also not relevant as it is the dealer - opposite party who is claiming exemption and he has to prove the essential facts entitling him to claim the exemption. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Tribunal is indefensible and it suffers with manifest error of law. It is held that there is no evidence on record to show that the dealer - opposite party made the subsequent Central sales by endorsement of document of title. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the first appellate authority is restored back. No order as to costs.