JUDGMENT BHARATI SAPRU :- This revision has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondents for the assessment year 2002-03 under the proceedings of section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian-made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and has a unit at Daurala, its registered office is at Delhi. The assessee has various depots in the States of Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh, etc. The assessee makes stock transfers of the IMFL manufactured at U.P. at its Daurala unit to other States. The depots of the assessee are also registered in the various States and file their returns regularly over there. For the assessment year 2002-03 an assessment order was passed on December 31, 2003 accepting the books of account of the applicant under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee claimed exemptions in respect of stock transfers of a value of Rs. 63,26,28,594. The assessee was given time up to December 30, 2004 to furnish form F in respect of stock transfers of the above amount. The assessment reached up to the final stages and the Trade Tax Tribunal passed an order on March 10, 2006 by which it remanded the case to the assessing authority for verification of the forms F which have been filed by the assessee of the value of Rs. 63,26,28,594. While the matter was being examined under the remand order dated March 10, 2006 a notice under section 21 was issued on December 22, 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Meerut. The contents of the notice under section 21 also are in reference to the value of forms F, which had been directed by the Tribunal to be examined and verified. The assessing authority ultimately passed an order on March 22, 2007, this order is on record as annexure 3 to the revision and states that the forms F have been verified amounting to a value of Rs. 63,26,28,594 and have found to be correct and accepted by the Department. The assessing authority ultimately passed an order on March 22, 2007, this order is on record as annexure 3 to the revision and states that the forms F have been verified amounting to a value of Rs. 63,26,28,594 and have found to be correct and accepted by the Department. Thus, there is no dispute that the forms F were verified and accepted finally by the Department and no proceedings were initiated by the Department any further doubting the veracity of these forms F. On the other hand, proceedings under section 21 continued against the assessee, who contested the proceedings all through stating that the proceedings under section 21 were bad in law and without jurisdiction and also kept contending that once the requisite form F covering the entire transaction of stock transfers had been scrutinized, verified and accepted then no proceedings under section 21 could ensue/proceed against the assessee in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2004] 134 STC 473. The learned counsel for the assessee has laid specific emphasis on the contents of paragraph No. 93 of this judgment. The proceedings under section 21 have culminated finally in a decision of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 28th of August, 2008 wherein the second appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed. The following questions of law have been referred in the present case, which are quoted herein : (1) Whether the original assessment proceedings being pending before the assessing authority, the reassessment proceedings under section 21 could not have been legally initiated by the assessing authority vide notice dated December 22, 2006, contrary to law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC) ? (2) Whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) were legally justified in not adjudicating the question of validity of initiation of proceedings under section 21 which goes to the root of the matter, and which was specifically taken in grounds of appeal as well as argued before the Commercial Tax Tribunal as well as the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) ? (3) Whether in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the transactions having been accepted as stock transfers in the original assessment proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) in respect of which 131 forms F which were furnished during the extended time granted by the assessing authority, and the same having been accepted by order dated March 22, 2007 by the assessing authority as correct and genuine after enquiry and scrutiny, no proceedings could be legally taken under section 21 for reassessment in respect of the same transactions ? (4) Whether the applicant having discharged his onus of burden as required under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act and as per law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [2004] 134 STC 473 having furnished requisite and prescribed form F the correctness and genuineness of which had not been doubted by the assessing authority after due scrutiny and enquiry and there being no further requirement of furnishing of assessment order in respect of different depots either under the Act or Rules, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter merely because assessment orders of different depots were filed under section 12B of the Act as additional evidence before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) ? (5) Whether the power of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) being co-extensive with the assessing authority and the documents and evidences having been filed under section 12B and proper opportunity of rebuttal and hearing having been granted to the assessing authority, the very said documents and evidences being the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for creating a liability in respect of transactions of stock transfers, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in remanding the matter rather than adjudicating it himself and the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of remand passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) ? (6) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority ought to have adjudicated the matter on its own finality rather than upholding the order of remand passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) merely on the basis of additional documents filed under section 12B before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) which are not required either under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act or Rules framed thereunder, by giving a fresh inning to the assessing authority ? (7) Whether in any view of the matter, the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal upholding the order of remand passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is unjustified and liable to be set aside ? It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the initiation of the proceedings under section 21 during the pendency of the original assessment proceedings was bad and without jurisdiction as there was no material on record before the assessing authority to form a reasonable belief that any part of the turnover had escaped assessment. The second argument of learned counsel for the assessee is that once it had become final by way of the order dated March 22, 2007 that the forms F submitted by the assessee having been duly verified and established it was sufficient to grant to the assessee the benefit of the provisions of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act and would entitle the assessee to exemptions under the said provisions particularly in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473. The learned counsel has further contended that since no defect was found in 131 forms F covering the entire stock transfer and since they had been found to be genuine and correct and since there was no allegation of fraud, collusion or misappropriation, that in itself was sufficient to lend a quietus to the matter and no additional enquiry or investigation such as enquiry under section 21 was called for in such a case. In reply to the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee the learned standing counsel has relied upon his counter-affidavit and has argued that because no assessment order of the respective States relating to the seven branches from which the form F has been received had been submitted by the dealer, therefore, it was justified for the assessing authority to levy tax on the Central sales of the dealer. This plea has also been taken in paragraphs 5, 7 and 11 of the counter-affidavit. In fact this is the only reason given in the counter-affidavit to justify the initiation of the proceedings under section 21 itself. I have heard learned counsels for both parties and I have also perused the material on record. On facts it is clear that the matter, which had been sent for verification under the remand order dated March 10, 2006, was concerned with stock transfers made to seven depots worth Rs. 63,26,28,594. Upon remand an order was passed on March 12, 2007 in which the assessing authority having verified the form F supplied by the assessee had come to the conclusion that the forms F amounting to 131 numbers were all found to be genuine and correct. The value of these forms added up to the value of Rs. 63,26,28,594. Thus, there is no doubt that the remand order dated March 10, 2006 and the order dated March 22, 2007 relate to the same transactions, which have been duly verified. In view of these facts and in view of the decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [2004] 134 STC 473, this court is also of the opinion that the requirement of the forms F having been duly filled and verified being met no further clarifications or proceedings were required. That in itself was sufficient to entitle the assessee for exemptions under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. Insofar as the question of the initiation of section 21 proceedings is concerned, I am of the view that the proceedings were not justified because during the pendency of the original assessment proceedings under section 7 of the Act it could not be said that any turnover had escaped assessment as contemplated by section 21 of the Act. Insofar as the question of the initiation of section 21 proceedings is concerned, I am of the view that the proceedings were not justified because during the pendency of the original assessment proceedings under section 7 of the Act it could not be said that any turnover had escaped assessment as contemplated by section 21 of the Act. In order to substantiate this argument learned Counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Narayan Soap Works, Kanpur v. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax, Kanpur reported in [2005] UPTC 1078. I respectfully follow the said judgment and I am in agreement with it. For the reasons stated above, the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The order of the Tribunal dated August 28, 2008 is set aside. This revision is allowed.