ORDER : The assessee has filed these petitions relating to the assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2004-05, challenging the order of the Tribunal, whereby the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed. 2. In short, the facts of this case are that the assessee is in the business of publication of newspaper for which newsprint is used, which is admittedly ‘goods,’ which is taxable under the Sales Tax Act, even though the newspaper is exempted from such tax. The dispute in the present case is with regard to stock transfer of newsprint from Manipal to Mumbai, which the petitioner-assessee claims was for printing of its newspaper in Mumbai and was transferred from its office in Manipal to its own office in Mumbai. However, it is not disputed that though the newsprint was meant for printing newspaper by the office of the petitioner-assessee in Mumbai, but for whatever reason, the newspaper was printed, not in the office or the printing press of the assessee at Mumbai, but outside. Since the assessee did not furnish the requisite Form-F, as required under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short], the exemption from tax was denied to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The first appeal filed before the Commissioner, as well as further appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, were both dismissed. Challenging the said orders, these petitions have been filed. 3. We have heard Ms. H. Vani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee as well as Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and have perused the record. 4. Section 6A of the Act relates to burden to prove in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. For claiming exemption under the said provision, what is required is that a statutory Form-F be furnished by the assessee from the authority where the recipient of the goods is registered as a dealer. In the present case, it is not disputed that the office of the assessee at Mumbai was not registered as dealer and as such no Form-F was furnished by the assessee. 5. By an amendment brought in the year 2002 in subsection [1] of section 6A of the Act, it has been clearly provided that. In the present case, it is not disputed that the office of the assessee at Mumbai was not registered as dealer and as such no Form-F was furnished by the assessee. 5. By an amendment brought in the year 2002 in subsection [1] of section 6A of the Act, it has been clearly provided that. “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.” 6. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Tribunal has rightly held that when the statute mandates production of any declaration Form to claim the benefit, such Form has to be filed, as non production of the same disentitles the assessee to the claim the benefit. 7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee herein would be disentitled to claim stock transfer benefit without furnishing the declaration in formF as mandatorily required by section 6A of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has vehemently urged that a liberal view should be taken in the case of newspaper industry, as has been held so by the Apex Court in the cases of ‘PRINTERS [MYSORE] LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS’ [ 1994 (93) STC 95 ] and ‘INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPER [BOMBAY] PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC., v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS’ [AIR 1986 SC 515]. 9. The facts of the cases before the Apex Court were different from the facts of the case at hand. Since in the present case, the Act mandates exemption to be granted only if the assessee fulfils a particular condition, which, admittedly has not been fulfilled by the assessee, the court is not left with any discretion in allowing the exemption, and such view as has been taken by the authorities below is completely justified and does not call for interference. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any question of law which may arise in these petitions for determination by this court. 11. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.