ORDER Ms. K. B. K. Vasuki :- On consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. Both the writ petitions are filed to quash the reassessment orders passed by the assessing authority, thereby disallowing the exemption given on transit sales. While W.P. No. 15226 of 2010 is filed against the re-assessment orders dated February 16, 2009 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated March 24, 2010, W.P. No. 15227 of 2010 filed against the identical reassessment order for the assessment year 2003-04. As both the writ petitions are filed by the same partnership against identical orders pertaining to different assessment years for identical reliefs based on identical set of facts involving identical issues, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common order. The petitioner herein is the registered dealer in papers and boards under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to, as "the TNGST Act and CST Act"). The petitioner has for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04 effected transit sales to the tune of Rs. 5,10,80,073 and Rs. 1,83,21,354, respectively. Thereafter, he filed the necessary returns along with E1 and C forms having respectively obtained from the original seller and the purchaser. The assessing officer, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner (CT), has after detailed study, passed the original assessment order thereby allowing exemption to the turnover in respect of transit sales. However, the same assessing officer has reopened the assessment proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner as to why exemption already granted in respect of transit sales cannot be disallowed and tax liability and penalty be imposed. The same is followed by the reassessment order thereby disallowing the exemption granted in respect of transit sales in the turnover in the original assessment order. The petitioner has challenged the reassessment order relating to assessment year 2001-02 before the first respondent/appellate authority and the first respondent/appellate authority has confirmed the order of the assessing authority. The same is followed by the reassessment order thereby disallowing the exemption granted in respect of transit sales in the turnover in the original assessment order. The petitioner has challenged the reassessment order relating to assessment year 2001-02 before the first respondent/appellate authority and the first respondent/appellate authority has confirmed the order of the assessing authority. Both the assessing authority and the appellate authority have in their orders, disallowed the exemption mainly on the ground that the C form obtained from the purchaser and produced by the petitioner herein, is on subsequent verification found to be not genuine as the same was not issued by the concerned assessing authority and has treated the turnover in respect of transit sales as turnover escaping assessment and brought the total amount of turnover with the tax liability and the said orders of assessing authority and appellate authority are now brought under judicial review before this court in these two writ petitions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transaction of transit sales is genuinely effected and the same is evident from E1 form obtained from the original seller and the petitioner cannot be liable for false documents produced on the side of the purchaser and the petitioner has no role in production of such false documents. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the transaction is genuine, the question of disallowing the exemption for the transaction effected does not arise herein and the order of the assessing authority for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04 and the order of the appellate authority confirming the reassessment order relating to the assessment year 2003-04 are illegal, unfair, arbitrary and contrary to the well laid legal principles. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would strenuously attempt to support the orders impugned herein on the ground that as the C form licence produced from the purchaser is found to be false, the exemption granted to the petitioner is rightly disallowed by the authorities concerned. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and the records are perused. It is true that the exemption allowed to the petitioner in the original assessment order is based on E1 form obtained from the original seller and C form obtained from the actual purchaser of the goods. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and the records are perused. It is true that the exemption allowed to the petitioner in the original assessment order is based on E1 form obtained from the original seller and C form obtained from the actual purchaser of the goods. It is equally true that once the transaction of transit sales is over, the petitioner has no control over the purchaser and he has no occasion to verify the C form produced from the side of the purchaser. The petitioner has only submitted the document as it is given to him by the purchaser. On the basis of the documents produced from the seller as well as the purchaser, the petitioner was granted concession in the original assessment order. However, the same concession is disallowed because of the act of fraud said to be committed by the purchaser in respect of which the petitioner has no control once the transaction is over. Unless and otherwise it is, based on concrete material, found out that the transaction is not true or the petitioner is party to the act of fraud said to be committed by the purchaser, the question of disallowing the exemption already given to the petitioner for the transaction actually effected between the parties, does not at all arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also in the course of argument drawn the attention of this court to an order passed by the honourable Division Bench of our High Court in the batch of writ petitions dated December 4, 2001 in W.P. No. 10610 of 2000 and order dated July 12, 2007 in the batch of W.P. Nos. 809 to 816 of 2006. While the subject-matter of the scrutiny in the case decided by the honourable Division Bench is form 17, the document under dispute in the batch of writ petitions decided by the honourable single judge of this court is in C form. In both the writ petitions, the honourable Division Bench and the learned single judge are of the view that it is not the duty of the seller-dealer to launch any enquiry as to whether or not either form 17 or C form produced by the buyer is genuine or not and as the seller-dealer has acted in good faith upon the buyer's representation, he is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Both the orders passed are based on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench has referred to the three-Bench Judge of the apex court in State of Madras v. Radio & Electricals Ltd. reported in [1966] 18 STC 222, wherein the learned single judge of this court in para 6 at page 6 of its order referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court, other High Courts and our High Court, which are relied upon by the petitioners therein, in support of his contention that the seller-dealers cannot be held for higher tax liability and consequential penal action for the false declaration of the documents produced on the side of the buyer and it is for the Revenue to take action against the purchaser-dealer in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act and the exemption cannot be disallowed. As a matter of fact, the learned single judge has in the batch of writ petitions set aside not only the reassessment orders, but also the demand for additional tax as well as penalty, without any relief being asked for to that effect. The impugned assessment orders are set aside mainly on the ground that it is for the Revenue to proceed against the purchaser-dealer for any contravention of law for giving wrong declaration in the manner known to law and no penal action can be warranted against the seller-dealer. It is strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner herein that in spite of the ratio laid down in the judgments as above referred to is brought to the notice of both the assessing authority and the appellate authority, the impugned orders came to be passed without considering the legal position. If that is so, applying the ratio laid down in the orders above referred to, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed, however, with liberty given to the Revenue to proceed against the purchaser-dealer for any contravention in the manner known to law. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.