JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. 2. This revision by the assessee revisionist relates to the assessment year 2009-10 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The only question of law which requires consideration in this revision is whether for a single transaction of sale between the same two dealers in connection whereto goods are delivered at one point of time in the next quarter of a financial year, separate Form-C is required for availing the benefit under Section 8(4) of the Act. 4. The assessee revisionist is dealing in Pharmaceutical. It supplied certain pharmaceutical products to M/s Dishman Pharmaceutical Ahamdabad under different invoices in the first quarter of the financial year but in respect of each of them single delivery of goods took place in the next quarter. Accordingly, single Form C in respect of each transaction was produced claiming benefit under Section 8(4) of the Act. 5. The authorities held that in view of the third proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the assessee revisionist is required to produce different Form C as the transaction is spread over into two quarters of the financial year and the benefit was denied. 6. The submission of Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist is that as the delivery of goods was not spread over into two different quarters of a financial but was confined to one quarter of the same financial year only one Form-C was sufficient to allow concessional rate of tax or the benefit under Section 8(4) of the Act. 7. In connection with the above submission, Rule 12(1) of the Rules is material and relevant. The aforesaid Rule reads as under : “12(1) The declaration and the certificate referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 8 shall be in Forms C and D respectively: Provided that Form C in force before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) (Amendment) Rules, 1974, or before the commencement of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) (Amendment) Rules, 1976, may also be used upto the [31st December, 1979] with suitable modifications. Provided further that a single declaration may cover all transactions of sale, which take place in a quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers: Provided also that where, in the case of any transaction of sale, the delivery of goods is spread over to different quarters in a financial year or of different financial years, it shall be necessary to furnish a separate declaration or certificate in respect of goods delivered in each quarter of a financial year.” 8. Section 8 of the Act read with Rule 12(1) of the Rules contemplates that the benefits of Section 8(4) of the Act would be available to a dealer only on production of a declaration/certificate in Form C and D respectively. 9. The manner and applicability of Form C and D has been prescribed in Rule 12(1) of the Rules. The aforesaid Rule 12(1) of the Rules contains three provisos. The first proviso has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The second proviso stipulates that a single declaration is sufficient to cover all transactions of sale which takes place in a particular quarter of a financial year between the same two dealers whereas the third proviso contemplates in case of transaction of sale if the delivery of the goods is spread over different quarters of a financial year separate declaration/certificate as contemplated by Section 8(4) of the Act would be necessary in respect of delivery of goods made in each quarter of a financial year. 10. In other goods, where in respect of a sale transaction, delivery of goods takes place in different quarters of a financial year separate declaration/certificates would be required in connection with each delivery. 11. The aforesaid third proviso is applicable where the delivery of goods takes place in different quarters of the same financial year in connection with a sale transaction. It does not apply where the delivery in connection of a sale transaction takes place only once and in one particular quarter of a financial year. 12. In the instant case, the transaction of sale may have taken in the first quarter but the delivery of goods took place in one particular quarter of the same financial year and is not spread over to different quarters of the financial year. Therefore, the third proviso of Rules is not attracted. 13. 12. In the instant case, the transaction of sale may have taken in the first quarter but the delivery of goods took place in one particular quarter of the same financial year and is not spread over to different quarters of the financial year. Therefore, the third proviso of Rules is not attracted. 13. The language used in the third proviso of Rule 12(1) of the Rules is “the delivery of goods is spread over to different quarters in a financial year.” The spreading of the delivery of the goods in different quarters is necessary for requiring separate declaration or certificates. The time of transaction of sale is not relevant for the above purpose. Therefore, even if the transaction may have taken place in the earlier quarter and the delivery of goods take place in the other quarter, the proviso three to Rule 12(1) of the Rules would not come into play. 14. It may be noted that a transaction of sale gets completed with the delivery of the goods therefore, what is relevant is the date of completion of the transaction not the date of initiation of the transaction. The date of completion being one, a single declaration/certificate is sufficient but the situation would be different where the date of completion of the transaction is spread over into different quarters of a financial year in which case separate declarations/certificates would be necessary. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question posed above is answered in favour of the assessee revisionist and against the revenue and it is held that in respect of single delivery of goods in one quarter of a financial year separate declaration/certificates in Form C & D are not necessary and a single Form C would suffice the purpose. 16. The impugned orders dated 14.12.2010, 21.4.2011 and 29.6.2012 are set aside and the assessing authority is directed to pass a fresh order by treating the transaction to be covered by single Form-C. 17. The revision is allowed. No costs. —————