Judgment :- D.MURUGESAN J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 23.4.2001. 2. This writ petition, at the instance of the assessee, relates to the claim of exemption under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is a registered dealer dealing with pulses and grams. For the assessment year 1990-91, the dealer claimed exemption in respect of certain standard goods, viz., pulses and grams as such despatches were effected by way of stock transfer. The said claim was negatived by the assessing officer on the basis of the report of the Enforcement Wing Officer made subsequent to the filing of the returns. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that the transaction was interstate sale and not stock transfer. That order was challenged by the dealer in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal by holding that it was only a stock transfer and not interstate sale. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 31 of the Act, the Joint Commissioner suo motu revised the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by holding that the claim of the dealer for exemption under Section 6-A was not acceptable. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/dealer is before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned Special Government Pleader (T) for the respondents. 4. In order to ascertain whether a particular transaction is interstate sale or stock transfer, two relevant considerations may arise. Firstly, the movement of goods should have occasioned from one State to another. In order to prove such movement of goods, the burden lies on the assessee. Secondly, whether a contract of sale was entered into by the dealer. The burden of proving the above lies on the Revenue. In order to discharge the burden, the assessee had produced the following documents:- "i. Covering letter. ii. Form XX quadruplicate copy. iii. Sale patti given by Tvl. Batcha Brahmaiah Company showing freight, commission, and sales tax paid details in their State." The assessee had also filed the statement showing despatches made in the subsequent months as well to the consignment agents. The assessee had also produced their continuous running account. Only on the basis of the above materials, the appellant/Assistant Commissioner had found that the transaction in question was only a stock transfer. The assessee had also produced their continuous running account. Only on the basis of the above materials, the appellant/Assistant Commissioner had found that the transaction in question was only a stock transfer. The appellant/Assistant Commissioner has also relied upon the following two judgments to support his conclusions. They are, 33 STC 472 (India Pistons Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), 41 STC 55 (Mad.) [Madras Rubber Factory Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu]. 5. However, the Joint Commissioner, without reference to the above materials and the consequent finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, had relied upon the statements said to have been given by the assessee dealer to the effect that they received the orders for sale of goods to the alleged agents and that they pay at the agreed rates. In our opinion, these materials were neither relied upon by the assessing officer nor were placed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and for the first time, the statement had been taken into consideration to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The finding of the Joint Commissioner in this regard cannot be sustained as against the indisputable factual finding given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 6. From the available materials, we have no other option to hold that the transaction in question is only a stock transfer and not an interstate sale. In view of the said finding, the writ petition must succeed and accordingly, the same is allowed. No costs.