JUDGMENT : 1. Assessment under Section 6(5) (1) of the CST Act for the year 2011-2012, reckoning a portion of the amount covered by the F-Forms for which no supporting transport documents were produced to substantiate interstate movement and thus treating the same as interstate sale, fixing the tax liability accordingly, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer, both under the Central Sales Tax Act and Kerala Value Added Tax Act and is having place of business in Kerala as well as in other parts of the country. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of electronic/consumable goods under the Brand name ‘Onida’. In the course of business, the petitioner procures goods by way of ‘stock transfer’ from other States for sale in Kerala and so also transmits the stock from Kerala to other places as well. The petitioner has been filing returns in respect of the transactions and satisfying the tax accordingly. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 20.6.2014 issued by the respondent proposing to reject the return, wherein exemption was claimed in respect of ‘interstate stock transfer’ to the tune of Rs.18,94,40,86/- which was stated as not proved. Adding the said figure to the ‘interstate sale’ conceded to the tune of Rs.25,01,400/-, the total turn over was proposed as Rs.19,19,42,206/- and tax was sought to be assessed accordingly, inviting objections, if any, to be filed within the specified time, also granting an opportunity of personal hearing. 3. About two months after, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 31.8.2014 producing F-Forms in respect of the ‘interstate stock transfer’ for the year, for the turnover of Rs.18,70,22,888/- giving all the particulars as per the statement attached. After verification of the same, the respondent arrived at a finding that, out of the total of Rs.18,70,22,888/-, the actual movement of goods was substantiated by declaration of the above transports in border check posts, only to the tune of Rs.11,17,15,000/- and as such, the assessee company was found eligible for exemption to the said extent. After verification of the same, the respondent arrived at a finding that, out of the total of Rs.18,70,22,888/-, the actual movement of goods was substantiated by declaration of the above transports in border check posts, only to the tune of Rs.11,17,15,000/- and as such, the assessee company was found eligible for exemption to the said extent. Since the assesseee failed to produce supporting documents to prove the actual movement of goods, the balance sum of Rs.7,77,25,806/- forming the residual part of turnover was added with a notional gross profit of 10% and the taxable turnover was determined treating it as interstate sale and fixed the tax as per Ext.P3 order dated 17.9.2014, issuing consequential demand as well. This made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging the assessment order. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent, mainly placing reliance on Section 6(A) of the CST Act, asserting that the burden of proof cast upon the assessee was not discharged to sustain the interstate stock transfer. But for producing the F-Forms, no other materials were produced by the assessee to prove the movement of goods across the State, to have taken it outside the purview of taxation. 5. Heard both the sides in detail. 6. Mr. A. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the idea and understanding of the assessing authority is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects. It is stated that, submission of F-Forms was more than sufficient to prove the interstate stock transfer in the instant case and no other material was necessary. It is also pointed out that, there is no dispute for the respondent with regard to the acceptability of F-Forms. It is further contended that, though the burden is cast upon the assessee to prove the interstate movement of goods as to the stock transfer, it is not necessary to produce check post documents in all cases and that F-Forms could be taken as relevant material to establish the stock transfer. If at all any doubt was there for the assessing authority, it was for him to have conducted a proper enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of F-Forms and since such a course has not been pursued, Ext.P3 assessment order is per se wrong and illegal in all respects and hence liable to be intercepted by this Court. If at all any doubt was there for the assessing authority, it was for him to have conducted a proper enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of F-Forms and since such a course has not been pursued, Ext.P3 assessment order is per se wrong and illegal in all respects and hence liable to be intercepted by this Court. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another ( (2004) 134 STC 473 ), a Division Bench ruling rendered by this Court in C.P.K Trading Co. v. Addl. Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Matancherry & Another (1990) 76 STC 211 (Ker)) and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Carborundum Universal Limited v. State of Kerala & Others ( (2006) 147 STC 408 (Ker)). 7. The course and proceedings pursued by the respondent are sought to be justified by Smt. Shoba Annamma Eapen, learned Senior Government Pleader pointing out that, the said order has been passed perfectly within the four walls of law and in conformity with the mandate of Section 6(A) of the CST Act. It is stated that, the decisions sought to be relied on by the petitioner are not applicable as such, to the case of the petitioner. It is pointed out that, the issue has been considered and decided with reference to the amended provisions as per the decision in ESAB India Limited v. State of Kerala ( (2006) 147 STC 417 ) and vide the much later judgment dated 13.2.2012 in OTR No. 21 of 2012, making the position crystal clear. 8. There cannot be any tax liability, if the movement of goods from one State to another State (or within the State), is otherwise than by way of sale. ‘Stock transfer’ is one such incident and on such an event, it is open for the assessee to claim exemption from meeting the tax liability to the appropriate extent covered by stock transfer. But by virtue of the mandate of the statute, the burden is heavily cast upon the assessee, to prove the transaction that it was otherwise than by way of sale. 9. Section 6(A) brought into the statute with effect from 1.4.1973 reads as follows: “6A. But by virtue of the mandate of the statute, the burden is heavily cast upon the assessee, to prove the transaction that it was otherwise than by way of sale. 9. Section 6(A) brought into the statute with effect from 1.4.1973 reads as follows: “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 purposes 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 and that no inter-State sale has been effected, 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, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be deemed for the purpose 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 the authority for the time being competent to assess the tax payable by the dealer under this Act.] [(3).Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall preclude reassessment by the assessing authority on the ground of discovery of new facts or revision by a higher authority on the ground that the findings of the assessing authority are contrary to law, and such reassessment or revision may be done in accordance with the provisions of general sales tax law of the State].” It is very evident from the above provision that the declaration in the prescribed form has to be submitted ” along with the evidence of despatch of such goods”. 10. The words “and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale” were originally not there and it was inserted only by the relevant Finance Act (Act 20 of 2002 (Central Act)) with effect from 11.5.2002. It was obligatory for the assessee to have submitted the declaration in the prescribed form along with evidence of despatch of such goods. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 (A) refers to the enquiry, as the assessing authority may deem necessary, to get satisfied as to the correctness of the transaction and if he gets satisfied, an order was to be passed to the effect that, the movement of goods to which the declaration relates, shall, subject to the provisions of sub section (3) (on discovery of new facts or revision by higher authority to have re­assessment) be deemed for the purpose of the Act to have occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. 11. The scope of Section 6(A) had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in C.P.K. Trading Company v. Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattanchery and Another (1990) 76 STC 211 ). In the said case, though the assessee had produced the F-Forms, the claim for exemption was rejected, on the ground that, copies of bills issued by the agents to the purchasers were not produced, as required by Rule 5A(d) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, and that the appellant had failed to prove the ‘principal-agent’ relationship. In the said case, though the assessee had produced the F-Forms, the claim for exemption was rejected, on the ground that, copies of bills issued by the agents to the purchasers were not produced, as required by Rule 5A(d) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, and that the appellant had failed to prove the ‘principal-agent’ relationship. The assessment was finalized treating it as ‘interstate sale’, which was declined to be interfered in the writ petition, thus leading to the writ appeal. The Division Bench held that, the assessing authority had failed to apply his mind to the terms of Section 6A(2) of the CST Act despite the fact that he was obliged to peruse the declarations in F-Forms and after making such enquiry as he deemed necessary, find whether the particulars contained in the declarations were true. Instead of doing so, the assessing authority solely relied on Rule 5A(d) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1958 and held that the assessee having failed to produce copies of bills issued by the agents to the purchasers and failed to prove the principal-agent relationship, it had to be treated as interstate sale. This Court held that, the only requirement of Section 6A(2) of the Act was to find out whether the particulars contained in the declarations furnished by the dealer were true and since there was no finding or discussion on this aspect, in the orders of assessment, they were accordingly set aside. 12. As discussed by the Bench in paragraph ‘1’ itself, the assessee in the said case had produced “sale Pattials” along with the F-forms in support of the claim. But according to the assessing officer, the document produced by the assessee along with F-forms was not a document prescribed under Rule 5A of the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957. The Bench observed that the burden cast upon the assessee was to prove the transaction and the manner of proof could be in different ways, which came within the scope of enquiry contemplated under sub section (2) of Section 6A. The said decision as such, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in so far as there is no case for the petitioner that he had submitted any document other than F-form declaration. The said decision as such, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in so far as there is no case for the petitioner that he had submitted any document other than F-form declaration. That apart, the aforesaid decision was rendered in the year 1990, whereas, an amendment was brought into Section 6A, by virtue of Act 20 of 2002 in the year 2002, whereby something more was added to sub section (1) of Section 6A before the commencement of enquiry, prescribing the course of action to be followed. 13. The scope of the said decision came to be considered by another Division Bench of this Court in ESAB India Ltd. v. State of Kerala( (2006) 147 STC 417 ), wherein the assessee produced lorry receipts along with the F-forms. But the Bench observed that, the said act by itself cannot establish the transaction to be treated as interstate stock transfer. Referring to the law declared in ) (cited from the part of the assessee therein), the Bench observed that, filing of F-forms by itself cannot prove the transaction and that the lorry receipts by itself is no evidence. It was also observed that, F-form itself provides that, proof of despatch of goods has to be produced while claiming exemption under Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956. It was in the said circumstance, that the various documents, which could substantiate the factum of ‘interstate stock transfer’ were referred to. The version of the petitioner that, mere production of F-forms is enough to prove the transaction, is alien to the scheme of the statute and nowhere in any of the decisions cited from the side of the petitioner, is there any such declaration. If at all any such declaration is there, it can only be ‘per incurium’ as the provision stipulates that, apart from the F-forms, evidence as to the despatch of goods was also necessary. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and Tax Revision case was dismissed as devoid of any merit. 14. The above position was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 13.2.2012 in OT.Rev. No. 21 of 2012. Observations made by the Bench in paragraph ‘5’ are relevant which hence is extracted below: xxxxxxxxxx 5. Section 6A of the CST Act casts burden on the assessees to prove exemption claimed on stock transfers with all required evidence. No. 21 of 2012. Observations made by the Bench in paragraph ‘5’ are relevant which hence is extracted below: xxxxxxxxxx 5. Section 6A of the CST Act casts burden on the assessees to prove exemption claimed on stock transfers with all required evidence. Goods transferred from one State of another are either under contract of sale or as stock-transfer which could be to the outside State branch of the Dealer or to the consignment agent appointed by the dealer in such State. Under Section 6A of the CST Act, a dealer claiming exemption on stock transfer of goods made to another State should prove that such transfer was not under contract of sale. Rule 12(5) of the CST (R&T) Rules prescribe form F as the form required to be produced for claiming exemption on stock transfer under Section 6A of the CST Act. However, it is a settled position that mere production of form F is not sufficient to prove exemption on stock transfer. For claiming exemption under Section 6A it is for the dealer to prove with required evidence that the goods have moved from one State to another and it is only along with such evidence the dealer has to produce form F and other details regarding consignment agency or Branch to which transfer is made. The details required for proving consignment transfers are covered by Rule 5A of the CST (Kerala) Rules. So much so, when exemption is claimed on stock transfer of goods by producing form F, it is open to the Assessing Officer to call for the particulars of transport of goods such as lorry receipt, railway receipt or such other transport document, which in the course of road transport will contain even border check post seal, and only if physical transfer of goods from one State of another is proved, there is the need to examine the acceptability of C form declaration filed. In other words, physical transfer of goods from one State to another is a matter which should be proved for granting exemption under Section 6A. A situation may arise when the dealer proves transfer of goods from one State to another but without producing form F or evidence in support of actual transaction like transfer to branches or to consignment agents etc. A situation may arise when the dealer proves transfer of goods from one State to another but without producing form F or evidence in support of actual transaction like transfer to branches or to consignment agents etc. In such case, disallowance happens under Section 6A and assessment has to be made treating the transaction as interstate sale by virtue of the presumption available under Section 6A (1) of the CST Act. On the other hand, if the dealer fails to prove movement of goods from one State of another, the transaction will be assessed as local sale, irrespective of whether C-form was produced or not. Such assessment will be under the local Sales Tax Act or under the VAT Act depending on under which Act, the sale of such goods are taxable. The petitioner in this case failed to prove transfer of goods from one State to another with transport document, and therefore the Assessing Officer made assessment under the KVAT Act, and so much so, the remedy available is only by way of first appeal against the assessment before the first appellate authority.” 15. Strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another ( (2004) 134 STC 473 ). Assessment sought to be reopened after accepting F-form declaration and the despatching documents, finalizing the assessment accordingly, was the subject matter of consideration therein. As observed by the Bench in paragraph ‘5’ of the judgment, the assessment for the year 87-88 was finalized on 28.8.1991 with the following finding: xxxxxxx 5. An order of assessment for the year 1987-88 dated August 28, 1991 was passed finding: “The dealers have filed detailed statement of stock transfer of vehicles to their outside State regional sales offices and spares to their warehouses. The statement was verified in detail with reference to form ‘F’ declaration filed by them and despatching documents. The dealers have also filed completed assessment orders of their regional sales offices in other States. Their claim was examined in length and found to be in order. The form ‘F’ filed by them are accepted and the exemption granted”. 16. The statement was verified in detail with reference to form ‘F’ declaration filed by them and despatching documents. The dealers have also filed completed assessment orders of their regional sales offices in other States. Their claim was examined in length and found to be in order. The form ‘F’ filed by them are accepted and the exemption granted”. 16. Obviously, the position/consequence of the amendment to Section 6A after Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 11.5.2002 was not the subject matter of consideration in the said case, though some reference has been made to the amended provision as well. That apart, the assessee in the said case had filed necessary F-forms and also the despatching documents, which is not the position in the instant case. The observation of the Bench in paragraph ‘34’ is relevant which is extracted below: “34. xxxxxxxxxxxx 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 of 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. 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 of principal of the place of business of the company is situated.” 17. From the above discussion, it is crystal-clear that there is a duty upon the assessee to produce ‘transport documents’ as well, along with the F-forms. In the said case, the assessee had produced the despatch documents along with Form F declaration, as evident from the assessment order, as extracted in paragraph ‘5’ of the judgment. This is not the position in the instant case and admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any despatch documents, but for filing F-form. This is evident from Ext.P2 reply submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext.P1 notice, where no mention is made to any other documents, but for the F-forms. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner/assessee has satisfied the obligation cast upon him under Section 6A, to proceed with further enquiry in the matter and hence the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Asok Leyland’s case does not come to his rescue. 18. Before the amendment of Section 6A as per Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 11.5.2002, the provision only mentioned about the liability of the assessee to produce the F-forms along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. As per the provision, the necessity to conduct enquiry by the assessing authority to get satisfied of the factual particulars, was also mentioned. In other words, the consequence if the assessee has not filed a valid declaration, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods, was never in the statute book with reference to the time of assessment/assessment year considered by the Apex Court in Ashok Leyland’s case (assessment year being 87-88). The consequence came to be incorporated only subsequently. In the absence of consequence, it was obligatory for the assessing authority to conduct the enquiry as mentioned in sub section (2) and to arrive at a finding, passing an order as to the fate of such enquiry. The consequence came to be incorporated only subsequently. In the absence of consequence, it was obligatory for the assessing authority to conduct the enquiry as mentioned in sub section (2) and to arrive at a finding, passing an order as to the fate of such enquiry. By virtue of a conscious decision, the law makers thought it necessary to incorporate the consequence or failure in sub section (1) of section 6A with effect from 11.5.2002 thus adding the sentence “...and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale”. This means, if the assessee fails to submit the prescribed F-forms along with the evidence of despatch of goods, then there will be an adverse inference to the effect that, the movement of goods shall be deemed as part of ‘interstate sale’. If only a valid declaration along with evidence of despatch of goods is filed, then comes the next stage of enquiry contemplated under sub section (2), where the adequacy of evidence could be looked into, to get satisfied as to the genuineness of the transaction. It is also relevant to note that, satisfaction of the assessing officer as to the genuineness of the transaction was sought to be asserted by incorporating some more words to sub section (2) in the year 2010. By virtue of the Union Finance Act 2010 (Act 14 of 2010), the words “and that no interstate sale has been effected” were added immediately after the words “if the assessing authority is justified for making such enquiry as he deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub section (1).” This being the position, the petitioner herein, admittedly having not produced any despatch documents along with F-form declaration, cannot aspire to have the benefit flowing from Ashok Leyland’s case or the subsequent decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in ( (2006) 147 STC 408 (Ker))(cited supra) relying on the said verdict passed by the Apex Court. 19. 19. Coming to the decision rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in ( (2006) 147 STC 408 (Ker))(cited supra), it is to be noted that, there is no dispute with regard to the legal position, particularly, as to the burden of the assessee to prove the transaction in terms of Section 6A of the CST Act. The Bench only observed that, the assessing officer was not right in observing that, no documents as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in ( (2006) 147 STC 417 )(cited supra) were produced and hence the interstate stock transfer was not proved, was not correct. The learned Judge observed that the scope of any judgment had to be read and understood with reference to the issue considered therein, in the light of the relevant facts and that, a judgment shall not be read as a statute. The learned Judge further observed that the obligation cast upon the assessee under Section 6A could be discharged by adducing other evidence as well. As observed by the learned Judge, the assessee had filed declaration in F-form and had produced different documents in his attempt to satisfy the authority as to the genuineness of the particulars stated in the F-Forms during the enquiry. The relevant portion of the verdict reads as follows: “The assessee (writ petitioner) had, indisputably, filed declarations in form F and had produced different documents in its attempt to satisfy the assessing authority as to the genuineness of the particulars stated in the F forms during the enquiry. According to the writ petitioner, lorry receipts, as also goods consignment note and form 26 under the KGST Act, as well as excise invoices as prescribed under rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and sales tax declaration in form 27B were produced before the assessing authority. Exhibits P8 to P12 are produced by the petitioner to demonstrate the nature of the documents produced before the assessing authority. However, the impugned exhibit P7 is passed by the assessing authority by holding merely that the claim of exemption under section 6-A cannot be allowed in view of the judgment of this court in Esab India Ltd. V. State of Kerala ( 2006 (147) STC 417 [App]: (2004 (12) KTR 34). The assessing authority went on to hold that ”the assessee have not produced the documents prescribed by the honourable High Court. The assessing authority went on to hold that ”the assessee have not produced the documents prescribed by the honourable High Court. Hence, the claim of exemption is disallowed and stock transfers made are treated as CST sales and assessed to tax” 20. From the above, it is clear that, the assessing authority proceeded on a wrong tangent and finalized the assessment holding that, the documents prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court are necessary in all cases, so as to sustain the claim for exemption, which hence was intercepted by the learned Judge. The said decision or the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ashok Leyland’s case does not make out a proposition as now put forth from the part of the petitioner that, Form-F declaration alone is sufficient to prove genuineness of the interstate stock transfer. 21. To sum up, the point to be considered is whether any further enquiry is necessary under sub section (2) of Section 6A when the petitioner admittedly fails to produce the despatch documents along with F-forms. Sub section (1) of Section 6A clearly says that, the assessee has to submit F-form declaration along with despatched goods. The consequence is mentioned as per the amendment, Act 20 of 2002 with effect from 11.5.2002, clearly stating that, if no such declaration i.e., proper declaration along with the despatch document, to make it a valid document is available, there is no other alternative for the assessing officer, but to hold that the movement of such goods shall be deemed as part of ‘interstate sale’. Only if proper and valid declaration along with evidence of despatch of goods (irrespective of the nature of evidence produced) is filed, there occurs the necessity to enquire into the adequacy of evidence to ascertain the genuineness of F-forms, which is the ‘second stage’ as stipulated in sub section (2) of Section 6A. There is total failure on the part of the petitioner in satisfying the first limb, and hence the proceedings were concluded on the basis of the materials produced, by passing Ext.P3 order. It is also evident from Ext.P3 that, the total stock transfer claim was to an extent of Rs.18,70,22,888/- out of which an extent of Rs.7,77,25,806/- was not proved with evidence as to the actual movement of goods. It is also evident from Ext.P3 that, the total stock transfer claim was to an extent of Rs.18,70,22,888/- out of which an extent of Rs.7,77,25,806/- was not proved with evidence as to the actual movement of goods. The assessing officer has not stated that, it was to be supported by any particular despatch document and the observation is only that, no supporting document to prove the actual movement of goods ‘like’ check post seal/papers. No averment is raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that, the petitioner had produced any other document to support the transaction to the said extent by submitting any despatch documents to show the movement of goods. As such, this is not a case of ‘adequacy of evidence’, to be considered in the course of enquiry, but a case of total non production of evidence, which comes within the bar provided under the last sentence of the amended provision, i.e., sub section (1) of Section 6A. 22. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order is not liable to be intercepted by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that, it is still open for the petitioner to move the appellate authority, also producing copies of the relevant documents, to support the transaction to the extent relief has been declined by the asssessing authority. Since this exercise has to be done only by producing relevant documents and after verification of the same, it cannot be pursued by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.