ORDER RAJENDRA MENON, J. - Challenging the orders passed by the assessing authority, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated April 29, 2005 (annexure P4) for the period April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, and the order (annexure P7) passed by the revisional authority rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment, the petitioner has filed this petition. The petitioner is a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu having its head office at Chennai and branch at Arera Colony, Bhopal. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of medicines. It is stated that at times orders are directly made to the head office of the company at Chennai and the medicines are sold from the head office and in bulk transferred to the purchaser in various parts of the State. According to the petitioner when such sales are made, for the purpose of facilitating smooth transfer of the items sold form 75 are issued by the Bhopal branch to the head office at Chennai, only for the purpose of transfer of material. In all such cases also, the sales are effected from the head office at Chennai directly to the purchaser and there is no sale within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that these are inter-State sales effected by the head office at Chennai and in pursuance of the said procedure, various sales were made by the head office to the Chief Medical Officer, Central Railways Hospital, Jabalpur and Bhopal, respectively. For the purposes of bringing goods to the State of Madhya Pradesh in pursuance of these sales form 75 was issued by the Bhopal branch in respect of supplies made to Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Railways, Bhopal and Jabalpur. When the Commercial Tax Department conducted assessment proceedings for the aforesaid period, the petitioner was asked to explain transactions made vide twelve form 75s, which were not recorded in the sale record maintained by the petitioner's office at Bhopal. According to the petitioner they appeared and pointed out that out of twelve form 75s which were said to be not accounted for, four forms pertain to sale of vegetable seeds which are exempted from payment of tax, as it is included in entry No. 30 of Schedule I to section 15 of the Commercial Tax Act. According to the petitioner they appeared and pointed out that out of twelve form 75s which were said to be not accounted for, four forms pertain to sale of vegetable seeds which are exempted from payment of tax, as it is included in entry No. 30 of Schedule I to section 15 of the Commercial Tax Act. It was emphasised that as the transfer made by these four forms pertains to transfer of vegetable seeds, no tax is liable to paid on the same. As far as one form No. 5915/26 was concerned, it was pointed out that this does not relate to the petitioner - company, but to Finolex Cable Limited and, therefore, no tax could be levied on this form. As far as the other seven forms are concerned, it was pointed out that in all these cases sales were made directly by the head office of the company from Chennai to the Central Railway Authorities at Jabalpur and Bhopal and as the sale transaction was held in the State of Tamil Nadu, it was liable to be taxed under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and no tax on these sales could be levied in view of section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act. Shri H. S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to the particulars of the twelve form 75, as contained in annexure P2, provisions of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and Schedule I to section 15 and entry at Serial No. 30 thereof, argued that all the twelve transactions effected by form 75 were explained and in spite of the same the authorities have assessed tax holding that the sales took place at Bhopal and, therefore, liable for payment of tax. Inter alia, contending that the respondents have misconstrued the entire transactions and have not considered the same in the right perspective and have assessed tax on improper consideration, no tax is liable to be paid for these inter-State sale, challenge is made to the assessment done and the tax determined on the transactions indicated in these twelve form 75s. Inter alia, contending that the respondents have misconstrued the entire transactions and have not considered the same in the right perspective and have assessed tax on improper consideration, no tax is liable to be paid for these inter-State sale, challenge is made to the assessment done and the tax determined on the transactions indicated in these twelve form 75s. Refuting the aforesaid contention Shri Alok Pathak, learned Government Advocate, by inviting my attention to the order (annexure R1) and on form 75 (annexure R2) tried to point out that as the forms indicated sale of the goods from office at Bhopal, Indore and as form 75 was issued from the office of the branch at Bhopal, all the transactions made by the aforesaid forms were liable to be accounted for and tax deducted. Inter alia contending that all the sales were effected from Bhopal and are liable to be taxed, the respondents have refuted the aforesaid contentions. It is the case of the respondents that all the transactions covered under the twelve forms indicate that the sales were made from Bhopal and, therefore, they are liable to be taxed under the statutory provision and accordingly action taken. Shri Alok Pathak argued that as assessment is done properly and as the sales are effected within the State, commercial tax has been properly levied and the orders passed by the revisional authority and the assessing authority refusing to accept the explanation given with regard to the transactions indicated in the twelve form 75s are proper, no error is committed warranting interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only dispute requiring consideration in this petition is with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay commercial tax on the transactions effected by the twelve form 75s, as indicated in annexure P2. The respondents have not refuted the facts as are indicated in annexure P2. That being so, the only question to be adjudicated by this court is as to whether the transactions indicated in these twelve form 75s are liable to be taxed and accordingly taxed by the respondents rightly. Before adverting to consider the said question, it would be appropriate to take note of the statutory provisions. Under Schedule I to section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, certain goods are exempted from payment of tax. Before adverting to consider the said question, it would be appropriate to take note of the statutory provisions. Under Schedule I to section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, certain goods are exempted from payment of tax. Under entry No. 30, certain seeds, plants and bulbs of vegetables, grass, fruits and fruits other than methi, dhaniya and their seeds and "oilseeds", are exempted. Similarly, section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for levy and collection of tax and penalties. Tax is liable to be paid by a dealer under this provision for sale of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Tax is to be paid as per the levy prescribed by the Government of India and the same is to be collected by the Central Government from the State from where movement of the goods commences. Section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act places certain restrictions on the power of the State Government to levy tax on inter-State sales and sales made outside the State. All purchases and sales made outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and done in the course of inter-State trade or commerce are exempt from payment of tax under this provision. It is in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions that liability of the petitioner to pay tax on the twelve transactions involved in this petition, is required to be determined. If the particulars of form 75, as indicated in annexure P2, are reviewed, it would be seen that forms at serial Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 pertain to transaction for sale of vegetable seeds. All these transactions are exempted from payment of tax by virtue of entry No. 30 of Schedule I of section 15, that being so, the transactions indicated in these four form 75s cannot be assessed for the purposes of collecting commercial tax. As far as form 75, at serial No. 9 is concerned, the same does not relate to the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be assessed for the purposes of imposing liability on the petitioner. All the other transactions indicated at serial Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are sales made directly from the head office at Chennai to the Central Railways Hospitals at Jabalpur and Bhopal, respectively. All the other transactions indicated at serial Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are sales made directly from the head office at Chennai to the Central Railways Hospitals at Jabalpur and Bhopal, respectively. Accordingly, these transactions come within purview of sale of goods from Chennai and commencement of movement from Chennai to Bhopal and Jabalpur, respectively, after sales are effected at Chennai and, therefore, liable to be taxed under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act to be paid by the head office of the company at Chennai, to the Central Government and on these goods no tax can be levied in the State of Madhya Pradesh as no sale has taken place in the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to these transactions. These sales are also not liable to be taxed in view of the provisions of section 79 of the Commercial Tax Act, as these sales do not pertain to sale or purchase of goods within the State of Madhya Pradesh; they pertain to sale or purchase which have taken place outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and are in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. That being so, all the transactions indicated in the twelve forms are beyond the purview of taxation in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the assessing authority and the revisional authority indicates that the authorities have construed the sale to be effected in the State of Madhya Pradesh, merely on the ground that form 75 is issued from the branch office at Bhopal to the office at Chennai and, therefore, it is construed that the sale is from Bhopal. This finding recorded and inference drawn by the authorities is wholly misconceived and perverse and without any basis. Merely because form 75 is issued from the branch office at Bhopal that, by itself, does not cast a liability on the petitioner to pay tax, further finding has to be recorded by the respondents to the effect that the sales transaction have taken place within the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, liable to be taxed. Except for holding that form 75 is issued from the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is nothing to show that the sale transaction in fact took place within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Except for holding that form 75 is issued from the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is nothing to show that the sale transaction in fact took place within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The account books of the petitioners were perused and no finding is recorded on the basis of the account books to show that the sales are effected in the State of Madhya Pradesh or sale proceeds were received by the branch office at Bhopal and, therefore, liable to be taxed. An assumption is drawn merely on the basis of issuance of form 75 from branch office at Bhopal to hold that the sales were effected within the State of Madhya Pradesh whereas form 75s were issued only for the purposes of smooth transfer of the material from Chennai to Jabalpur or Bhopal after the sales were completed in the State of Tamil Nadu. The transaction indicated in form (annexure R2) is for transfer of material from Indore to Chennai, that also of an exempted material, i.e., vegetable seeds. That being so, the assessment of commercial tax on the aforesaid twelve form 75 made by the assessing authority and affirmed by the revisional authority is wholly misconceived and has been done without taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, finding the assessment to be made without actual sales taking place within the State of Madhya Pradesh, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned passed by the assessing authority levying commercial tax on the aforesaid twelve transactions as contained in annexure P4 dated April 29, 2005 and affirmed by the revisional authority vide annexure P7 dated December 5, 2005, and the consequential action taken for recovery of the tax so assessed are quashed. The petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid, with no order as to costs.