JUDGMENT : S.H. Kapadia, Aftab Alam, JJ. Leave granted. Appellant-Indian Oil Corporation is inter alia engaged in the business of refining and selling of petroleum products including High Speed Diesel (HSD) and Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO). Appellant-corporation is a registered dealer in the State of Orissa for the purpose of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "CST Act"). 2. Appellant-corporation sells HSD and SKO by despatching the said goods from various refineries like Jamnagar Refinery, Vizag Refinery and Chennai Refinery to Haldia Port, West Bengal. Since, Big Ocean Tankers cannot be sent to the Haldia Port, West Bengal, the entire load of SKO and HSD which are carried by the Big Ocean Tankers are unloaded in the appellant-corporation's Terminal at Paradeep Port, Orissa. Out of the said stock a certain portion of the goods is used for local sales inside the State of Orissa and sales tax under Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 is paid. The remaining portion is moved to Haldia Port in West Bengal by way of Small Tanker Vessels on "stock transfer" basis. 3. During the assessment year 2001-02 the appellant-corporation moved HSD and SKO from Paradeep Port, Orissa to Haldia Port, West Bengal in the total quantity of 2,69,846.277 KL of SKO and 4,40,150.791 KL of HSD respectively. The ownership and title of the goods remained with appellant-corporation as can be seen from the Bill of ladings. The appellant-corporation furnished a declaration in terms of Form-F declaring that the movement of the subject-goods stood occasioned by stock transfer and not by inter-State Sale. 4. The Assessing Authority vide its order dated 31.3.05 held that the appellant-corporation could not provide any evidence in support of Form-F and consequently the Assessing Authority recorded a finding of escapement of turnover from tax. Aggrieved by the decision of the Assessing Authority, the appellant-corporation preferred statutory appeal before the first appellate authority which dismissed its appeal vide order dated 15.2.06 on the ground that no relevant documentary evidence has been produced to prove that the goods stood despatched to outside the State on stock transfer basis. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-corporation preferred Second Appeal to the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant-corporation approached the Commissioner for stay of the recovery which was granted vide its order dated 12.6.06. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-corporation preferred Second Appeal to the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant-corporation approached the Commissioner for stay of the recovery which was granted vide its order dated 12.6.06. No sooner the Commissioner granted stay of the recovery, the Assessing Authority gave notice to the appellant-corporation on 29.12.06 seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that a portion of the total turnover had escaped assessment. Vide order dated 19.2.07, the Assessing Authority passed re-assessment order rejecting the request for adjournment made by the representative of the appellant-corporation. The Assessing Authority held that the entire transaction in relation to the movement of goods from appellant-corporation's Terminal at Paradeep Port, Orissa to Haldia Port, West Bengal amounted to inter-State sale(s). 6. Suffice it to state that against the reopening of assessment, the appellant-corporation moved the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.3691 of 2007 seeking to challenge the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Authority raising additional tax demand of Rs. 299,05,07,587/- including penalty of Rs. 179,43,04,552/-. By the impugned judgment dated 16.5.08 the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissed the said writ petition hence this civil appeal by way of petition for special leave is filed by the appellant-corporation. 7. At the outset, we may state that Section 6A of Central Sales Act, 1956 is in two parts. The first part mandates that the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the movement of the goods to any other place of his business is occasioned otherwise than by way of sale(s). The second limb of Section 6A of the CST Act stipulates that the dealer is permitted to discharge the burden of proof by furnishing declaration as prescribed in Form-F along with evidence of despatch of such goods. 8. Under Section 6A(2) of the CST Act it is inter alia provided that if the Assessing Authority is satisfied after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration are true he may, at the time of the assessment of tax, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration related shall be deemed to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale(s). 9. 9. In this case, as stated above, appellant- corporation had furnished Form-F. In the said writ petition what was submitted by the appellant-corporation was that the notice for re-assessment was wholly without jurisdiction and that the Assessing Authority could not have reopened the assessment in invoking Rule 10 and Rule12(8) of the Orissa Rules in relation to transactions for which Form-F was furnished. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the challenge to the order of re-assessment by the appellant-corporation on the ground that it was a case of change of opinion. Lastly, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-corporation that looking to the magnitude of the matter including the demand the Assessing Authority ought to have given more time to the appellant-corporation for producing the relevant documents. In this case the impugned order of re-assessment dated 19.2.07 is virtually an ex-parte order. 10. In the aforestated circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16.5.08 in Writ Petition (C) No.3691 of 2007 as also the order of re-assessment dated 19.2.07 passed by the Assessing Authority. 11. Accordingly, we remit this case to the Assessing Authority with the direction to give full opportunity to the appellant- corporation and decide the re-assessment proceedings including the jurisdictional fact as to whether reopening of assessment was at all maintainable, in accordance with law. The Assessing Authority will also consider the effect of Form-F declaration submitted by the appellant- corporation. 12. Accordingly, the civil appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. ORDER DELIVERED ON 11 -12-2009 CA No. 8353 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19799 of2008] 13. Leave granted. The appellant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is inter alia engaged in the business of refining and selling of petroleum products including high speed diesel (HSD) and superior kerosene oil (SKO). The appellant Corporation is a registered dealer in the State of Orissa for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the CST Act"). 14. The appellant corporation sells HSD and SKO by dispatching the said goods from various refineries to Haldia Port, West Bengal. Since big ocean tankers cannot be sent to Haldia Port, West Bengal, the entire load of SKO and HSD which are carried by the big ocean tankers are unloaded in the appellant Corporations terminal at Paradip Port, Orissa. 14. The appellant corporation sells HSD and SKO by dispatching the said goods from various refineries to Haldia Port, West Bengal. Since big ocean tankers cannot be sent to Haldia Port, West Bengal, the entire load of SKO and HSD which are carried by the big ocean tankers are unloaded in the appellant Corporations terminal at Paradip Port, Orissa. Out of the said stock a certain portion of the goods is used for local sales inside the State of Orissa and sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 is paid. The remaining portion is moved to Haldia Port in West Bengal by way of small tanker vessels on "stock transfer" basis. 15. During Assessment Year 2001-2002 the appellant Corporation moved HSD and SKO from Paradip Port, Orissa to Haldia Port, West Bengal in the total quantity of 31,976.331 KL of SKO and 2,10,285.507 KL of HSD respectively. The ownership and title of the goods remained with the appellant Corporation as can be seen from the bills of lading. The appellant Corporation furnished a declaration in terms of Form F declaring that the movement of the subject goods stood occasioned by stock transfer and not by inter-State sale. 16. The assessing authority vide its order dated 23-3-2005 held that "as the dealer assessee could furnish declaration Form F for the entire stock transfer effected to the tune of Rs 331,63,04,081.97, the dealer assessee is allowed the stock transfer claimed". However, the assessing authority did not accept the assessees explanation regarding wrongful inclusion of certain sales to M/s IBP & Co. as inter-State sales. Aggrieved to this extent by the decision of the assessing authority, the appellant Corporation preferred statutory appeal before the first appellate authority which dismissed its appeal vide order dated 26-12-2005. 17. Being aggrieved, the appellant Corporation preferred second appeal to the Tribunal. While the appeal was pending, the assessing authority gave notice to the appellant Corporation on 29-12-2006 seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that a portion of the total turnover had escaped assessment. Vide order dated 15-2-2007, the assessing authority passed a reassessment order rejecting the request for adjournment made by the representative of the appellant Corporation. 18. The assessing authority accepted all the Forms F submitted by the appellant to the extent of Rs 331,63,04,081.97. Vide order dated 15-2-2007, the assessing authority passed a reassessment order rejecting the request for adjournment made by the representative of the appellant Corporation. 18. The assessing authority accepted all the Forms F submitted by the appellant to the extent of Rs 331,63,04,081.97. Nevertheless, the assessing authority held that the entire transaction in relation to the movement of goods from the appellant Corporations terminal at Paradip Port, Orissa to Haldia Port, West Bengal amounted to inter-State sale(s). Suffice it to state that against the reopening of assessment, the appellant Corporation moved the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3181 of 2007 seeking to challenge the reopening of assessment by the assessing authority raising additional tax demand of Rs 356,68,54,887.27 including penalty of Rs 214,01,12,932.36. 19. By the impugned judgment dated 16-5-2008 the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissed the said writ petition, hence this civil appeal by way of petition for special leave is filed by the appellant Corporation. 20. At the outset, we may state that Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is in two parts. The first part mandates that the burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the movement of the goods to any other place of his business is occasioned otherwise than by way of sale(s). The second limb of Section 6-A of the CST Act stipulates that the dealer is permitted to discharge the burden of proof by furnishing declaration as prescribed in Form F along with evidence of dispatch of such goods. 21. Under Section 6-A(2) of the CST Act it is inter alia provided that if the assessing authority is satisfied after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration are true he may, at the time of the assessment of tax, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration related shall be deemed to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale(s). 22. In this case, as stated above, the appellant Corporation had furnished Form F in respect of Rs 331,63,04,081.97 which was accepted by the assessing authority both in the assessment order and the reassessment order. 22. In this case, as stated above, the appellant Corporation had furnished Form F in respect of Rs 331,63,04,081.97 which was accepted by the assessing authority both in the assessment order and the reassessment order. In the said writ petition what was submitted by the appellant Corporation was that the notice for reassessment was wholly without jurisdiction and that the assessing authority could not have reopened the assessment in invoking Rule 10 and Rule 12(8) of the Orissa Rules in relation to transactions for which Form F was furnished and accepted for the above figure. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the challenge to the order of reassessment by the appellant Corporation on the ground that it was a case of change of opinion. Lastly, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Corporation that looking to the magnitude of the matter including the demand the assessing authority ought to have given more time to the appellant Corporation for producing the relevant documents. In this case the impugned order of reassessment dated 15-2-2007 is virtually an ex parte order. 23. In the aforestated circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16-5-2008 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3181 of 2007 as also the order of reassessment dated 15-2-2007 passed by the assessing authority. Accordingly, we remit this case to the assessing authority with the direction to give full opportunity to the appellant Corporation and decide the reassessment proceedings including the jurisdictional fact as to whether reopening of assessment was at all maintainable, in accordance with law. The assessing authority will also consider the effect of Form F declaration submitted by the appellant Corporation and accepted by the authority for the above figure. Accordingly, the civil appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.