Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. The Assessee is on revision as against the order of the Tribunal (19.5.2009) whereby the Tribunal restored the order of Assessing Authority, negativing the claim for consignment sales. 2. Brief facts:- Assessee – Sri Ambiga Saw Mill and Traders is carrying on business in Timber and is a registered dealers under TNGST & CST Acts. For the assessment year 1990-91, Assessee had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.12,21,753/- and had claimed exemption on the consignment sales made through their agents in other State amounting to Rs.19,09,732/-. On 21.6.1991, the Enforcement Wing Officers inspected the premises of the Assessee and found that Assessee has not maintained all the records as required under Rule 4(3-A) of Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules. By referring to the illustrations relating to the date of despatch, delivery note number, quantity, date of sale and referring to pattials received from the timber agent, by the Proceedings in CST 302508/90-91 dated 26.2.1999, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim of exemption on consignment sales at Rs.19,09,732/-holding that loads have been moving upon specific orders only and the transactions are to be constructed as falling under Section 3(e) of Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority levied penalty of Rs.2,87,892/- under Section 9(2) of CST Act read with Section 12(3) of TNGST Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of DCTO, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) allowed the appeal holding that Assessing Authority has not established any conceivable link between the buyer and the Assessee nor the records recovered during the inspection revealed such link between the ultimate buyer and the Assessee. Referring to (1970) 26 STC 354 [TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAMSHEDPUR AND ANOTHER], the Appellate Authority held that before treating consignment transaction into inter-State sale, individual transactions should be verified. Pointing out that there was no finding in the assessment order that all the transactions have been verified by the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority, Department has preferred appeal before Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the records recovered clearly indicates that the goods were despatched based on prior orders and hence it is an inter-State sale. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Appellate Authority, Department has preferred appeal before Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the records recovered clearly indicates that the goods were despatched based on prior orders and hence it is an inter-State sale. After referring to the entries found in the slips as narrated by the Assessing Authority in his assessment order, the Tribunal allowed the Department appeal holding that there is direct nexus between the sale and the movement of goods from Pollachi to Bombay and the Tribunal also restored the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the Assessee has preferred the Revision. Tax Case Revision was admitted on the following questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in restoring the order of the assessing officer who has disallowed the claim of exemption on consignment sales on the sole ground that the agents have sold the goods in one lot and in short duration? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the order of the assessing authority in respect of rate of tax adopted at 10.05% when the Department itself has given an undertaking and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has clarified in D.Dis.Acts Cell 111/43921/93 dated 29.4.93 that up to the year 31.3.92 the rate of tax will be only basic rate of TSGST Act and no surcharge and Addl. Surcharge and Additional Sales Tax would be added in which case the rate of tax for the year 90-91 under CST Act would be only at 10% in the absence of "C" form? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the penalty levied under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 12(3) of the Act when the turnover as per accounts had been accepted and only the exemption claimed on consignment sales was disallowed and whether the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 28 STC page 700 in the case of Jayaraj Nadar & Sons is applicable to the Petitioner's case?” 6. Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for Assessee contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1970) 26 STC 354 [TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for Assessee contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1970) 26 STC 354 [TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAMSHEDPUR AND ANOTHER], each transaction has to be verified to conclude that there was completed sale and the Assessing Authority has not verified all the transactions. It was further contended that Tribunal failed to consider that Assessee's agents sold goods to various Timber dealers and they have not sold it to the individual customers and the Tribunal has failed to consider that the Assessing Authority has not verified all the transactions. 7. Mr.A.R.Jayapratap, learned counsel for Department has submitted that with reference to the covering letters to the despatches, the Assessing Authority found that the goods moved in pursuance of the contract and that the order of the Assessing Authority was rightly restored by the Tribunal and no questions of law are involved in this Revision. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 9. The principles of inter-State sales are well settled. A sale of goods is in the course of inter-State trade, if the sale and movement of goods from one State to another are integral parts of the same transaction. There must exist a direct nexus between the sale and the movement of goods from one State to other. In the case of ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED V. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, reported in (1976) 38 STC 475 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "if there is a conceivable link between the contract of sale and the movement of goods from one State to another in order to discharge the obligation under the contract of sale, the sale will assume the character of an inter-State sale". 10. Assessee is a dealer in timbers sending consignment of goods through their agents in Bombay and also made inter-State sales. Assessee effected consignment sales of timber and claimed exemption. In respect of inter-State sales, they have claimed concessional rate of tax. Business place of Assessee was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 21.6.1991. There was no production of written contract and maintenance of Rule 4(3-A) documents. The Inspecting Officers have verified pattials received from Bombay agent along with copies of sale bills. In respect of inter-State sales, they have claimed concessional rate of tax. Business place of Assessee was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 21.6.1991. There was no production of written contract and maintenance of Rule 4(3-A) documents. The Inspecting Officers have verified pattials received from Bombay agent along with copies of sale bills. From the pattials received from the Bombay agent, the Assessing Authority observed that the agents at Bombay never unloaded the different sizes of timbers that were despatched by the Assessee at Pollachi and there is no mention about loading and unloading charges. On the basis of the above, the Assessing Authority inferred that the agent at Bombay has sold the timber in one lot to one buyer which was despatched by the Assessee at Pollachi. 11. Section 6-A of CST Act, 1956 mandates the Assessee to substantiate his case that a particular transaction is consignment sale and not an inter-State sale. As per Rule 4 (3-A) of CST (TN) Rules, 1956 every principal who claims exemption on the above Rule in respect of sale of goods on consignment account through agents outside the State shall maintain records viz., (a) a register showing the name and the full address of the agent to whom goods were consigned together with description of the goods so dispatched for sale on each occasion and their quantity and value. (b) the originals of authorisation sent to the agent for the sale of the goods. (c) the originals of the written contract, if any, entered into between the principal and the agent. (d) pattials (i.e.) accounts rendered by the agent to the principals from time to time showing the gross amount of the bill and deduction on account of commission and incidental charges. (e) copies of bills issued by the agents to the purchasers; (f) extract of the ledger account of the principal maintained in the books of agents only signed by such agents. (g) copies of railway receipts or lorry receipts under which the goods were so dispatched and (h) a register showing the date and mode of remittance of the amount to the principal." Rule 4(3-A) of CST (TN) Rules provides for the particulars to be furnished by the Assessee when called for by the Assessing Authority. 12. (g) copies of railway receipts or lorry receipts under which the goods were so dispatched and (h) a register showing the date and mode of remittance of the amount to the principal." Rule 4(3-A) of CST (TN) Rules provides for the particulars to be furnished by the Assessee when called for by the Assessing Authority. 12. The Assessing Authority has given illustrations relating to the date of despatch, delivery note number, quantity, date of sale made by the Bombay agent. Referring to the pattials received from the Bombay agent and the covering letters, the Assessing Authority inferred that the agent at Bombay has sold the timber in one lot to one buyer which has been despatched by the Assessee at Pollachi. Since the same quantity of consignment sent from Pollachi was sold in one lot to one buyer, the Assessing Authority took the view that the loads have been moving upon specific orders only and the transactions are to be constructed as falling under Section 3(e) of CST Act. The Assessing Authority observed that there was no originals of written contract entered between the principal and the agent and that Assessee has not maintained the registers as required by Rule 4(3-A) of CST (TN) Rules. The Assessing Authority also observed that Assessee has not maintained and produced extract of ledger accounts. After referring to the bills and covering letters, the Assessing Authority held that in the absence of production of written contract or agreement and when the registers were not maintained as per Rule 4(3-A), the claim of consignment sale cannot be accepted. Thus he treated the transaction as inter-State sale falling under Rule 4(3-A) of CST (TN) Rules. 13. In (2004) 134 STC 473 [ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the effect of the deeming fiction under Section 6-A(2) of CST Act. Observing that initial burden of proof on a claim of consignment sales always rested on the dealer to show that the movement of goods was occasioned for reasons other than sale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "37. ......... On an analysis of the aforementioned provisions, therefore, the following propositions of law 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. ......... On an analysis of the aforementioned provisions, therefore, the following propositions of law 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. Legal fiction, as is well-known, must be given its full effect. .............. 57. Section 6-A 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 6-A 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. .............. 60. 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 an 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 an 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 view 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. (See Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 589 , Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (2003) JT 9 SC 109; (2003) 9 Scale 713 ).” 14. If the Assessee fails or neglects to file declaration of transaction in Form 'F', the transaction would be deemed to be "inter-State sale". Burden of proof is on the Assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority that particulars furnished in Form 'F' is true or genuine. Once the Assessee files the declaration in the statutory Form and the claim is made through the said statutory Form, the Assessing Authority has to hold an enquiry for the purpose of passing an order to arrive at a satisfaction that the movement of goods was occasioned otherwise than as a result of inter-State sale. 15. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland case (2004) 134 STC 473 , if declaration is filed and on an enquiry made pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the particulars furnished are found to be correct by the Assessing Authority, in view of legal fiction created, it would be a transaction otherwise than as a result of an inter-State sale. The order in which finding is given that the movement of goods was occasioned by the reason of transfer otherwise than by reason of sale is conclusive for all purposes and it can be re-opened only on a small set of ground such as fraud, misrepresentation, collusion etc. 16. In (1970) 26 STC 354 [TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAMSHEDPUR AND ANOTHER], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to find out whether completed contract of sale had taken place and whether it was an inter-State sale, the assessing authority is bound to examine each individual transaction and then decide whether it constitute an inter-State sale exigible to tax under the provisions of CST Act. There must be conceivable link between the buyer and the Assessee. 17. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Assessing Authority has not examined individual transactions. Assessing Authority referred to few instances and drew inference that the entire transactions were inter-State sale. It is not known whether the Assessee filed the statutory declaration and whether any enquiry was held in respect of individual transaction. The Assessing Authority came to the conclusion on the basis that the entire goods sent as consignment were sold as one lot within a couple of days which cannot be done unless or otherwise there is a pre-existing order for the goods and that loads have been moved upon specific orders only. Thus without examining the individual transactions, the entire transactions was treated as inter-State sale falling under Rule 4(3-A) of CST (TN) Rules. 18. Learned counsel for Assessee submitted that one such letter is dated 26.4.1991 which is beyond the assessment year 1990-91. It was also submitted that the slips and covering letters referred in the assessment order were not correlated with the illustrations pointed out in the assessment order. After referring to few instances, the Assessing Authority drew inference that the transactions are to be constructed as those falling under Section 3(e) of CST Act and thus disallowed claim of exemption on consignment sales of Rs.19,09,732/- and levied tax on the total taxable turn over. 19. Tribunal has referred to number of decisions and extensively extracted the decisions. But the Tribunal has not examined the facts in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. 19. Tribunal has referred to number of decisions and extensively extracted the decisions. But the Tribunal has not examined the facts in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Tribunal being final authority of facts, it ought to have considered the facts in the light of the findings of the Assessing Authority and the contra view taken by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 20. The assessment order shows that Assessing Authority has not held an enquiry as to individual transactions. Applying the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessment order cannot be sustained and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration based on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 134 STC 473 [ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER]. 21. In the result, the Tax Case (Revision) is allowed. The order of Tribunal in CTSA No.356 of 2000 (19.5.2009) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the Assessee in respect of each transaction in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 134 STC 473 [Ashok Leyland Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and another]. No costs.