JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the State-appellants against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2011 as passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 165 of 2011. The respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner was denied supply of Form-F required for making declaration in respect of inter-State transfer of the taxable goods from one State to another State when the incidence does not come within the sweep of the inter-State sale. The requisition as made by the writ petitioner for supply of Form-F as prescribed by Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the CST Rules, 1957, for furnishing declaration as envisaged in Section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the CST Act, 1956, for movement of the goods to the other States. 2. The genesis of the writ petition is rooted in the communication dated 27.11.2010, Annexure-P14 to the writ petition, whereby the writ petitioner was informed that her firm was not entitled to get Form-F under the provision of the CST Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder as the writ petitioner or her principal had not obtained certificate of registration separately under Section 7(2) of the CST Act, 1956 read with Rule 4(2) of the CST Rules, 1957. It was further stated in the communication that there was no bar to issue other statutory permits under the TVAT Act, 2004 or the CST Act, 1956 except Form-F for exigency of the business of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had filed a revision petition under Section 70 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the TVAT Act, 2004) and before disposal of the said revision petition, this court was approached under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the said action. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner made an undertaking that they would not press that revision petition in view that the redress could not be availed qua the revision as the subject matter was primarily related to interpretation of the provision of Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956. However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner made an undertaking that they would not press that revision petition in view that the redress could not be availed qua the revision as the subject matter was primarily related to interpretation of the provision of Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956. Even though no reason can be availed in the communication for refusal to issue Form-F for exigency of the business of the writ petitioner but from the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the Revenue in the Misc. application, which was adopted by the Revenue in the writ petition as their reply, some premises for the impugned action can be located. For appreciation, Para No. 6.5 of the said affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced hereunder:- 6.5. That it reveals from the Clause No.1 of the agreement made between the petitioner and outside State dealer (as per Annexure-P11, Page 15-16 of the writ petition and office records) clearly show that this agreement is made to evade taxes due under CST Act, 1956 against the inter-State sale and to evade taxes under TVAT Act, 2004. Clause-1 read thus- "Order will be delivered F.O.R. Agartala on receipt of the full value in advance and "F Forms". Which indicates that this agreement is nothing but to evade the payment of due tax under the CST Act, 1956 against the inter-state sale and thereby, to evade the TVAT. It also reveals that earlier the petitioner obtained Form "F" by submitting false declaration. From the reading of the agreement it is clear that the petitioner and the so called Principal entered into agreement is to sell and buy goods with money consideration. As per this agreement the petitioner agreed to import goods from that dealer to sell the taxable goods in the State of Tripura. For this reason, the petitioner is only entitled to Form "C' or other statutory permit in Form XXIV or XXVI but in no way he is entitled to get issued Form "F" which is being issued for the purpose of stock transfer from one registered branch to another registered branch situated outside the State of a dealer. But in the instant case, the petitioner has no branch outside the State nor is his Principal registered under the TVAT Act, 2004 and CST Act, 1956 in the State of Tripura. But in the instant case, the petitioner has no branch outside the State nor is his Principal registered under the TVAT Act, 2004 and CST Act, 1956 in the State of Tripura. Hence claim for Form "F" by the Principal/Principals is beyond the statute. 3. From the averments made in the said affidavit-in-opposition it surfaces that the principal/principals have no locus standi, according to the Revenue, to ask for Form-F from the writ petitioner as the transaction in question is not covered under Section 6A(1) of the CST Act,1956. Moreover, the principal is not registered under the TVAT Act, 2004 and the CST Act, 1956 in the State of Tripura. 4. The writ petitioner challenged the legality of the said decision of the Revenue on the solitary ground that no inter-State sale has occasioned preceding the movement of the products in question. The principal namely, 'Mahabir Chemicals' stated to be a registered dealer under the CST Act, 1956 vide Registration No. C.S.T. Gau 1B 1994 from the State of Assam, however, no record in this regard has been produced in the proceeding. But that status has not been disputed ever by the Revenue. The bone of contention rests on the nature of the inter-State transaction and for the purpose, the covenant containing the terms and conditions of the business was under the scanner. In the letter of appointment for appointing the writ petitioner as the Consignment Agent of 'Mahabir Chemicals', hereinafter referred to as 'the principal', as available at Annexure-P11 to the writ petition, the covenant, the content as follows is available:- Sub :- APPOINTMENT AS OUR CONSIGNMENT AGENT. Dear Sir, As per discussion held with you at our Guwahati Office, we are very glad to inform you that we have appointed you as our Consignment Agent for the period 2009-10 (i.e. 0110412009 to 3110312010) and authorized you to sale our ALL PRODUCTS (WASHING SOAP) in cartoon box packing for the same period as per terms and conditions given below. 1. You will send full payment as advance by Demand Draft and one blank "F" form against your order. 2. We will dispatch the goods through our preferable transport after receipt of full payment in advance only. 3. You will sale our products as per our Invoice Rate and charge us commission @ 5% on sale amount only. 4. 1. You will send full payment as advance by Demand Draft and one blank "F" form against your order. 2. We will dispatch the goods through our preferable transport after receipt of full payment in advance only. 3. You will sale our products as per our Invoice Rate and charge us commission @ 5% on sale amount only. 4. You will send us "F" Form, copy of Sale Bill for every month in the first week of the next month. 5. Any local taxes chargeable are liable by the Sale Agent who will collect and deposit to the local authority concern. 6. All the disputes, if arisen will be settled mutually by both the parties otherwise the matter will send to Guwahati Jurisdiction only. 7. We shall be terminate this agreement any time by giving one month notice to you. This agreement is valid for the period from 01104109 to 3110312010. 5. It is apparent that full payment of the product value as advance was required to be made by the writ petitioner to the principal along with a blank Form-F against the indent. It is stated in no uncertain terms that the goods would only be despatched by the transport preferable to the principal, after receipt of the full payment in advance. The principal as the consignment agent would be entitled to sell those products as per the invoice rate and thus the consignment agent would be entitled to commission @ 5% on the sale amount. The writ petitioner, as the consignment agent would also send Form-F and copy of the Sale Bill for every month in the first week of the next month. Apart that, the writ petitioner as the sale agent/consignment agent would be required to collect and deposit all local taxes chargeable to the concerned authority. According to the Revenue the said arrangement as recited in the covenant is a foul mechanism to evade the payment of due taxes under Sections 24 to 26 of the TVAT Act, 2004 and also to evade the payment of CST of the State. 6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is a registered dealer under Section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956 as well as under Section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004 and the Rules made thereunder for carrying on the business from the registered premises. 6. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is a registered dealer under Section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956 as well as under Section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004 and the Rules made thereunder for carrying on the business from the registered premises. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has been paying VAT for the sales relatable to the consignment imported to the State of Tripura by the said arrangement, but the writ petitioner does not pay the CST. Instead the writ petitioner sends Form-F to the principal for making the necessary declaration within the prescribed period to the concerned authority in the State of Assam. 7. Mr. B.B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue- appellant quite emphatically submitted that the transaction between the principal and the writ petitioner cannot be termed as inter-State transfer of stock, rather it is an incidence of inter-State sale. While elaborating his submission, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Revenue-appellant submitted that Section 2(b) of the CST Act, 1956 defines 'dealer' and Section 2(f) of the CST Act, 1956 defines 'registered dealer', meaning a dealer who is registered under Section 7 of the CST Act, 1956. Thus a registered dealer under the CST Act, 1956 cannot send taxable goods in breach of Rule 47 of the TVAT Rules, 2005 inasmuch as the principal is not registered dealer under Section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004. It is not in dispute, according to Mr. Das that the principal is liable to pay tax under the CST Act, 1956. On the other hand, the writ petitioner has no Branch outside the State which is registered for carrying on business in the State of Tripura. As such the claim of inter-State transfer of stocks cannot legally sustain for the reasons that from the contents of the covenant it reveals that it was an incidence of the inter-State sale. Form-F in appropriate cases are required only for exemption of the tax under the CST Act, 1956 in the said State, subject to inquiry and purpose of assessment of tax by the concerned authority under Section 6A(2) of the CST Act, 1956. Mr. Das quite candidly acceded that Form-F used to be issued previously to the writ petitioner but that decision was reviewed by the competent authority and thereafter issuance of Form-F has been refused in accordance with law. Mr. Das quite candidly acceded that Form-F used to be issued previously to the writ petitioner but that decision was reviewed by the competent authority and thereafter issuance of Form-F has been refused in accordance with law. In a nutshell, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Revenue appellant contended that the transaction in question is not by reason of transfer of goods as referred in Section 6A(1) of the CST Act, 1956. Section 6A(1) and 6A(2) of the CST Act, 1956 are reproduced for reference:- 6A. Burden of proof etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale.- (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods [and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purpose of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale]. (2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may, at the time of or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Explanation – In this section, assessing authority, in relation to a dealer, means that authority for the time being competent to assess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act. 8. It is apparent that in the event of movement of goods occasioned from one State to another State by reason of transfer of such goods by the registered dealer to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on the dealer and for that purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the particulars as prescribed in the form (Form-F) from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. In case of failure of making such declaration within the prescribed time then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purpose of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale. It eminently transpires that whatever the burden to be discharged in respect of the nature of the movement of goods from one State to another State it has to be discharged by the registered dealer, who has occasioned such movement of goods from one State to another State claiming to be the inter-State transfer, nor preceded by inter-State sale of any form and the assessing authority, in relation to that dealer is competent to inquire and assess the tax payable under the CST Act, 1956. 9. Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, while supporting the impugned judgment and order, submitted with emphasis that if the terms and conditions of the covenant in question is read, the plain meaning that would evince is that the products are being transferred from the State of Assam to the State of Tripura on payment of full value in advance and subject to furnishing Form-F. After the sale statement is furnished to the principal, the writ petitioner would be entitled to 5% commission of the sale proceeds. The writ petitioner is obligated to pay all the local taxes which include the TVAT as collected from the purchasers. It is unequivocally clear that the writ petitioner is acting as the 'agent' as provided in the said Section 6A(1) of the CST Act, 1956. Mr. Majumder strenuously contended that the interpretation that has been sought to be given by the Revenue-appellant is manifestly pedantic and not germane to the provisions of Section 6A(1) of the CST Act, 1956. In support of his contention, Mr. B.N. Majumder relies on a decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. S.K.F. Ball Bearing Co. Ltd., as reported in AIR 1960 SC 1294 . The principle as laid down in S.K.F. Ball Bearing(supra) is that if the remittance is received before the sale takes place that is subject to adjustment to the accounts but that by itself cannot be deemed as sale, taken place where the principal carries on the business. 10. Learned Single Judge, on considering the rival contentions held that the movement of the goods in question is not an inter-State sale but the transfer of goods from one State to another and as such refusal to issue Form-F to the writ petitioner for carrying on the transactions with the principal is unsustainable and accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the Revenue-appellants to issue Form-F to the writ petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order with condition that the petitioner shall fill in the said Form-F in the office of the said authority. 11. The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. & another, as reported in (2004)3 SCC 1 , held:- 44. The liability to tax on inter-State sale as contained in Section 6 is expressly made subject to the other provisions contained in the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9, on the other hand, which is a procedural provision starts with the words 'subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder'. Section 6A provides for exception as regard the burden of proof in the event a claim is made that transfer of goods had taken place otherwise than by way of sale. Section 6A provides for exception as regard the burden of proof in the event a claim is made that transfer of goods had taken place otherwise than by way of sale. Indisputably, the burden would be on the dealer to show that the movement of goods had occasioned not by reason of any transaction involving sale of goods but by reason of transfer of such goods to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be. For the purpose of discharge of such burden of proof, the dealer is required to furnish to the assessing authority within the prescribed time a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business or his agent or principal. Such declaration would contain the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. Along with such declaration, the dealer is required to furnish the evidence of such dispatch of goods by reason of Act 20 of 2002. In the event, if it fails to furnish such declaration, by reason of legal fiction, such movement of goods would be deemed for all purposes of the said Act to have occasioned as a result of sale. Such declaration indisputably is to be filed in Form F. The said form is to be filled in triplicate. The prescribed authority of the transferee State supplies the said form. The original of the said form is to be filed with the transferor State and the duplicate thereof is to be filed before the authorities of the transferee State whereas the counter foil is to be preserved by the person where the agent or principal of the place of business of the company is situated. 45. When the dealer furnishes the original of Form F to its assessing authority, an enquiry is required to be held. Such enquiry is held by the assessing authority himself. He may pass an order on such declaration before the assessment or along with the assessment. Once an order in terms of Sub-Section 2 of Section 6A of Central Act is passed, the transactions involved therein would go out of the purview of the Central Act. In other words, in relation to such transactions, a finding is arrived at that they are not subjected to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax. Once an order in terms of Sub-Section 2 of Section 6A of Central Act is passed, the transactions involved therein would go out of the purview of the Central Act. In other words, in relation to such transactions, a finding is arrived at that they are not subjected to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax. It is not in dispute thereunder no appeal is provided there against. 46. In Chunni La Parshadi La vs. CST (1986)2 SCC 501 , it was held (SCC pp.507-08, paras 23-25) 23. It means that a sale of any of the goods specified in Sub-section (1) to a registered dealer who has purchased them or to any unregistered dealer, shall for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a sale to the consumer unless the purchasing dealer purchases the said goods for resale in the same condition. It merely strengthens the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3AA i.e. unless the dealer proves otherwise, every sale shall, for the purpose of Sub-section (1), be presumed to be to a consumer. The combined effect of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), of Section 3AA of the Act is that tax would be payable if the goods in question i.e. cotton yarn, in this case, are sold to a dealer for consumption. Unless the dealer proves otherwise every sale by a dealer shall for the purpose of Sub-section (1) be presumed to be a sale to a consumer. A sale of any of the goods mentioned in Subsection (1) to a registered dealer who does not purchase them for resale in the same condition, without processing or sale to unregistered dealer shall be deemed to be a sale to the consumer. Therefore, a registered dealer has to prove that a sale to another registered dealer or an unregistered dealer is not for consumption. In order to facilitate the working of the Act, by Rule 12-A a method of proving has been provided that the sale is not a sale to the consumer. The reading of the rule along with relevant provisions of the Act leads to the conclusion that Rule 12-A method, furnishing of certificate in the form and with the particulars - is one of the methods of proving that sale by a registered dealer is not for consumption. The reading of the rule along with relevant provisions of the Act leads to the conclusion that Rule 12-A method, furnishing of certificate in the form and with the particulars - is one of the methods of proving that sale by a registered dealer is not for consumption. Neither the rule nor the provision of the section suggests that this is the only method. If a dealer can prove by any other way than the way contemplated by Rule 12-A then he is not so precluded. For the rule to say otherwise would be exceeding the provision of the section. The purpose for the making of the rule would however, be frustrated if after the dealer proves in the manner indicated in Rule 12-A he has to prove again ho w the purchasing dealer has dealt with the goods after he obtains the certificate from a registered dealer. That would make the working of the Act and Rule unworkable. 24. There is no dispute that in this case certificates as mentioned in Rule 12-A were furnished. 25. The questions involved in this case are whether by furnishing certificate in Form III-A and the details of such certificate given in Form IV, the selling dealer got exemption and Rule 12-A created an irrebuttable presumption i.e. that no further evidence is required in this matter to prove that the goods were sold to a dealer for resale in the same condition and not to be consumed by the purchasing dealer. 47………………… 48. On an analysis of the aforementioned provisions, therefore, the following propositions of la w emerge: (i) The initial burden of proof is on the dealer to show that the movement has occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods which is otherwise than by reason of sale. The assessee may file a declaration. On a declaration so filed an inquiry is to be made by the assessing authority for the purpose of passing an order on arriving at a satisfaction that movement of goods has occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. (ii) Whenever such an order is passed, a legal fiction is created. The Apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd.(supra) further enunciated as under : 74. Section 6A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of Section 6 of the said Act. (ii) Whenever such an order is passed, a legal fiction is created. The Apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd.(supra) further enunciated as under : 74. Section 6A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of Section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of 'sale' would not be exigible to tax, the burden whereof would evidently be on the assessee. We have noticed hereinbefore that whereas prior to the amendment in Sub-section (1) of Section 6A the dealer had an option of filing a declaration in Form-F,' after such amendment, he does not have such option, insofar as in terms of the amended provision, if the dealer fails and/or neglects to file such a declaration, the transaction would be deemed to be an inter-State sale. It is to be noticed that for the aforementioned purpose also, the Parliament advisedly used the expression 'deemed'. If the expression 'deemed' is interpreted differently, an incongruity would ensue. 75, In absence of any indication that the Parliament while enacting Sub-section (2) of Section 6A did not intend to make the deeming provisions to be a conclusive fact as regard occasion of the transaction having taken place otherwise than as a result of sale, it would have dealt with the matter differently. 76. Section 6A(2) of the Act uses the following expressions which are important : (1) 'thereupon; (2) 'for the purpose of this Act,' (3) 'the movement of goods to which the declaration related shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale'. 77. Each of them must be given its proper meaning. 78. A statute for the purpose of its interpretation must be read in its entirety. It is to be given a purposive construction. Applying Heydon's rule, it must be held that the amendment was necessitated not only to make the dealer to file such a declaration imperatively but also to see that such movement of goods becomes inter-State sale by raising a legal fiction, as 'having been occasioned in course of a inter-State sale'. It is to be given a purposive construction. Applying Heydon's rule, it must be held that the amendment was necessitated not only to make the dealer to file such a declaration imperatively but also to see that such movement of goods becomes inter-State sale by raising a legal fiction, as 'having been occasioned in course of a inter-State sale'. In other words, if such a declaration is filed and on an inquiry made pursuant to or in furtherance of the particulars furnished are found to be correct by the assessing authority, the result thereof which is evidenced by the expression 'thereupon' shall in vie w of the legal fiction created would be a transaction otherwise than as a result of an inter-State sale. Furthermore, once such a legal fiction is drawn, the same would continue to have its effect not only while making an order of assessment in terms of the State Act but also for the purpose of invoking the power of reopening of assessment contained in Section 9(2) of the Central Act as well as Section 16 of the State Act. 12. It is apparent from the la w as enunciated by the Apex Court that a right has been created in favour of the dealer who transfers the stock from one State to another to have the Form-F through the principal officer or his agent. If the nature of transaction in any manner is doubted that be enquired into by the competent authority as per provision as laid down in Section 6A(2) of the CST Act, 1956. Consequence of refusal to give the Form-F to such registered dealer who is transferring the stock for sale to the other State would create situs of sale by way of the legal fiction. 13. In view of this, we are of the opinion that whatever the suspicion that may invade the mind of the Revenue-appellants that would not give them any authority to refuse issuance of Form-F for making the declaration within the prescribed time to the appropriate authority in the State where the transactions claimed to be the inter-State transfer have originated from. 14. 14. In view of S.K.F. Ball Bearing (supra) as well as State of Orissa & another vs. K.B. Saha & Sons Industries (P) Ltd. & other, as reported in (2007)9 SCC 97 , where the Apex Court enunciated the la w regarding inter-State sale by way of the covenant, we are of the opinion that the covenant under reference in the writ petition does not accommodate any provision for inter-State sale and as such prima facie it cannot be held simply for making the payment of full value in advance that an inter-State sale has commenced before the movement of the goods/products from the State of Assam to the State of Tripura. As necessary corollary to this, we further hold that, if it appears to the Revenue in the State of Tripura that it is a foul mechanism designed by the principal and the writ petitioner to evade tax in any manner, they are not under any disability to make reference to the assessing authority as defined under Section 6A(2) of the CST Act, 1956 for making necessary inquiry and to take final view on the nature of transaction. But, at no event the Revenue-appellants are authorized by la w to refuse Form-F to the writ petitioner. We do not find any infirmity as such in the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. In favour of Department.