JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 17.12.2015 wherein the benefit of Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been granted to the opposite party. 3. Sri Pandey, has argued that as proper documents were not furnished and in the absence of finding that the sale of the goods was during the inter-State movement, the Tribunal has erred in according the benefit of Section 6(2) of the Act. 4. A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that in order to establish sale during movement of goods, Form E-1 was furnished. 5. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that no subsequent sale shall be exempt from tax under Section 6(2) of the Act unless the dealer affecting the sale furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time or extended time a certificate duly filled and signed by the registered dealer from whom the goods were purchased containing the prescribed particulars. 6. Rule 12 of Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 provides that the certificate referred in Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act shall be in Form E-1 or Form E-2 as the case may be. 7. In view of above, the sale of any goods during the movement of the goods inter-State has to be proved by furnishing a certificate in the prescribed Form i.e. Form E-1 or E-2. Therefore, once a certificate in Form E-1 was brought on record and it was not disputed, the sale would enure to the benefit of the dealer under Section 6(2) of the Act. 8. Accordingly, Tribunal has not committed any error in extending the benefit of Section 6(2) of the Act to the opposite party. There is no merit in the revision. It is accordingly, dismissed.