JUDGMENT : 1. The Assessee has filed the present two revision petitions before this Court, aggrieved by the common order dated 09.05.2003 passed by the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No.268/2000 – Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Bikaner Vs. M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Appeal No.10/2000 – M/s. Bikaner Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Bikaner respectively, dismissing the appeal No.10/2000 filed by the Assessee and allowing the appeal No.268/2000 filed by the Revenue. 2. Both the revision petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The learned Tax Board had dismissed the appeal No.10/2000 filed by the Assessee, holding that since the Assessee had collected the CST @ 2% on the branch transfers made by it of the carpet yarn from its Bikaner Branch to the Bhadoi (UP) Branch, therefore, the refund/adjustment of such CST paid cannot be allowed in the hands of the Assessee at Bikaner and the interest on such tax deposited by the Assessee shall also be leviable, in view of the amendment in Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Finance Act, 2000. 4. 4. The relevant findings of the learned Tax Board in the impugned order dated 09.05.2003 are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^i=kofy;ksa dks ns[kus ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk jkT; ds ckgj viuh ‘kk[kk dks 24]74]860@& :i;s dk dkjisV ;kuZ Hkstk x;k o bl ;kuZ dh fcdzh dks vUrjkZTth; fczdh ekurs gq, 2 izfr’kr dh nj ls dj olwy fd;k x;k o prqFkZ frekgh dh fooj.kh Hkjrs gq, bl varj.k dks varjkZTth; fczdh ls gVkdj bl dj dks ‘kk[kk dks fd;s x;s varj.k esa lek;ksftr dj fy;k x;kA fo}ku odhy O;olk;h dk rdZ gS fd ‘kk[kk varj.k ij dksbZ dj nkf;Ro ugha gksus ls o Hkwy ls dj olwy dj fy;s tkus ls vihykFkhZ bl dj dks lek;ksftr djus dk vf/kdkjh Fkk] tcfd fo}ku odhy foHkkxh; dk rdZ gS fd olwy fd;k x;k dj jktdks”k esa tek dj fn;k tkus ls vihykFkhZ dks bl dj dks ykSVkus dk o lek;ksftr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksus ls cdk;k varj.k ij ns; dj esa olwys x;s dj dks lek;ksftr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA fo}ku odhy vihykFkhZ ;g Lohdkj djrs gS fd ‘kk[kk varj.k dks varjkZTth; fcdzh ekurs gq, olwy fd;k x;k dj jktdks”k esa tek djk fn;k x;k gSA fo}ku odhy vihykFkhZ us esjs le{k 1997 VSDl oYMZ 128 ¼vkj Vh Vh½ okf.kfT;d dj vf/kdkjh cuke fla?ky isaV~l is’k dh] ftlesa ;g fl}kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd olwyk x;k dj iquZHkqxrku fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] dks jktdks”k esa tek djk;s tkus ds LFkku ij lacaf/kr O;olk;h dks lh/kk ykSVk;k tk ldrk gSA eSa Hkh bl fofu’p; esa izfrikfnr fl}kar ls lger gaw ysfdu ;g fofu’p; ekStwnk izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrk] D;ksafd ekStwnk izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk dj olwy dj jktdks”k esa tek djk;k tk pqdk gS o ,slh fLFkfr esa tek djk;s dj dk iquZHkqxrku ogh i{kdkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ftlls dj vuqfpr rjhds ls olwy fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ }kjk tek djk;s x;s dj dks vU; varjkZTth; fodz; ij ns; dj esa lek;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrk o dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk dj vkjksfir fd;s tkus esa o fo}ku mik;qDr vihYl }kjk bl fcanq ij vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus esa dksbZ dkuwuh Hkwy ugha dh xbZ gS o vihykFkhZ O;olk;h dh vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA fo}ku odhy foHkkxh; dk rdZ gS fd for fo/ks;d] 2000 ¼for ,DV] 2000½ esa /kkjk 9¼2½ dsUnzh; fodz; dj vf/kfu;e esa Hkwy{kh izHkko ls la’kks/ku dj fn;s tkus ls izR;FkhZ O;olk;h dk dj ij C;kt dk nkf;Ro gksus ls fo}ku mik;qDr vihYl }kjk vkjksfir C;kt dks vikLr fd;s tkus esa dkuwuh Hkwy dh xbZ gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ dh iqf”V esa 29 vkj Vh ts ,d 159 eSllZ ujsUnz ukFk ,.M daiuh cuke jktLFkku djk/kku vf/kdj.k is’k dh] ftlesa ;g fl}kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd dsUnzh; fodz; dj vf/kfu;e esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds i’pkr~ Hkwy{kh izHkko ls la’kks/ku dj fn;s tkus ls cdk;k dj ij C;kt vkjksfir fd;k tkuk fof/klEer gSA bl fofu’p; esa izfrikfnr fl}kar ls ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksfir C;kt fof/kd gS o fo}ku mik;qDr vihYl }kjk vkjksfir C;kt dks ml le; ds izko/kku o ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks ns[krs gq, vikLr fd;s tkus esa dksbZ dkuwuh Hkwy ugha dh xbZ FkhA ysfdu dsUnzh; fodz; dj vf/kfu;e esa Hkwry{kh izHkko ls la’kks/ku dj fn;s tkus ls mijksDr fofu’p; esa izfrikfnr fl}kar ds vuqlkj izR;FkhZ O;olk;h dk C;kt ij dj nkf;Ro gksus ls fo}ku mik;qDr vihYl }kjk vikLr fd;k x;k C;kt dk vkns’k vfof/kd gks tkus ls bl lhek rd vihykFkhZ foHkkx dh vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vihykFkhZ O;olk;h dh vihy uacj 10@2000 f[kykQ izR;FkhZ [kkfjt dh tkrh gS o vihykFkhZ foHkkx dh vihy uacj 268@2000 f[kykQ izR;FkhZ Lohdkj djrs gq, fo}ku mik;qDr vihYl ds vkns’k fnukad 15-10-99 dks vkaf’kd :i ls vikLr djrs gq, dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ds vkns’k fnukad 1-4-98 }kjk vkjksfir C;kt dh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA** fu.kZ; fnukad 09 ebZ 2003 dks lquk;k x;kA ,lMh@& ¼ds ,l pkS/kjh½ lnL;A 5. Mr.S.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner-Assessee urged that during the relevant assessment period of 1989-90 (01.04.189 to 31.03.1990), the Assessee had made branch transfers to the total tune of Rs.34,96,908/-against the prescribed Form 'F' prescribed under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1956, but by mistake, on the branch transfers to the tune of Rs.24,74,860/-, the Assessee wrongly, treating the same as inter-State sales made by it to its another Branch at Bhadoi (UP), collected CST @ 2% thereon and only the balance turnover of Rs.10,22,048/-was shown as S.O.S. (branch transfers) in the returns filed by it. However, in the revised return filed by it, the Assessee had shown the entire turnover of Rs.34,96,908/-supported by Form 'F' furnished by it as branch transfers and requested the assessing authority to adjust the CST wrongly paid by it on such branch transfers against the actual CST liability incurred by the Assessee on the inter-State sales made by it to the other purchasers. The assessing authority however, denied such refund/adjustment of 2% CST paid by the Assessee on Rs.24,74,860/-and held that not only such tax was leviable treating the said transactions as inter-State sales, but interest thereon also was leviable. 6. The first appeal filed by the Assessee before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner was partly allowed by the said authority on 15.10.1999 and while upholding the liability of tax @ 2% of Rs.49,474/-, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the levy of interest following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Carbon Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, (1997) 6 SCC 479 , after which the law came to be amended by amending Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956. 7. Therafter, the Assessee took the matter further before the learned Tax Board, where both the levy of tax as well as levy of interest came to be upheld by the learned Tax Board, while dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and allowing the cross appeal of the Revenue by the impugned order dated 09.05.2003. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee has filed the present revision petitions before this Court for the assessment period 1989-90. 9. Mr. S.D.Vyas, learned counsel for the Assessee urged that the branch transfers in question were duly supported by Form 'F', challans etc. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee has filed the present revision petitions before this Court for the assessment period 1989-90. 9. Mr. S.D.Vyas, learned counsel for the Assessee urged that the branch transfers in question were duly supported by Form 'F', challans etc. and there was no evidence available on record for treating the said transactions as inter-State sales assessable to CST under the provisions of Section 3 of the CST Act, 1956, and therefore, the authorities below have erred in imposing the tax and refusing to refund/adjust the CST @ 2% wrongly deposited by the Assessee, whereas the Assessee had corrected the said mistake in the revised returns filed by it, and merely claimed adjustment of the tax against the actual CST liability on the other inter-State sales made by it to the other purchasers, other than the branch of the same Assessee at Bhadoi (UP). 10. On the other hand, Mr.Falgun Buch appearing for Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue however, supported the impugned orders, but could not satisfy this Court about the legality of the imposition of the tax itself, or could not point out any evidence available with the Revenue for the transactions in question being actually the inter-State sales, instead of being S.O.S. Transfers or branch transfers by one Branch of the same Assessee to the other Branch, namely, from Bikaner (Raj.) to Bhadoi (UP). The question of interest, he submitted, would naturally depend upon the sustainability of the levy of the tax. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. The sine qua non for imposition of tax and interest thereon under the provisions of CST Act, 1956 is the movement of goods from one State to another, in pursuance of a pre existing contract between the parties. A contract of sale necessarily envisages existence of two parties or two different persons, may be natural persons or juristic persons, like corporates. A branch transfer is like transfer of some goods from left arm to the right arm of one natural man. There cannot be a sale if the two units of the same Assessee or same person enter into the transaction of transfer of goods. Mere transfer of goods is not the assessable and taxable sales under the sales tax laws. A branch transfer is like transfer of some goods from left arm to the right arm of one natural man. There cannot be a sale if the two units of the same Assessee or same person enter into the transaction of transfer of goods. Mere transfer of goods is not the assessable and taxable sales under the sales tax laws. The existence of contract seeking a transfer of property in goods from one person to another is at the root of levy and imposition of sales tax under the provisions of the State Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. 13. In the present case, the transactions prima facie appear to be mere branch transfers and not inter-State sales. The prescribed Declaration Forms alongwith documents in support of such branch transfers like Form 'F' were duly produced by the Assessee, but the same were repelled by the assessing authority, while rejecting the revised returns filed by the Assessee, merely by observing that I do not agree with the reply/contentions of the Assessee ¼^^eSa O;olk;h ls iw.kZr;k lger ugh gwa**½ . The assessing authority did not disclose any reason or evidence available with the Revenue to show or to establish that the transactions in question were actually inter-State sales made by the Assessee during this period and the revised returns filed by it claiming the entire branch transfers of Rs.34,96,908/-supported by Form 'F' were not actually branch transfers, but were inter-State sales. Neither the existence of two parties was brought on record by the Revenue, nor any such contract between such two parties was brought on record. 14. It cannot be over-emphasized and it is needless to say that the burden of proof in this regard squarely lies on the Revenue before levying the tax, while holding that the transactions in question amounts to a taxable event falling within the four corners of charging provisions of the Act itself. Such burden does not seem to have been even touched by the assessing authority, much less discharged in proper manner in the present case. The appellate authorities unfortunately did more of a cosmetic job, rather than applying their mind to the facts and evidence before them, before upholding the levy of tax and while one authority setting aside the levy of interest, other (Tax Board) restoring the same. The appellate authorities unfortunately did more of a cosmetic job, rather than applying their mind to the facts and evidence before them, before upholding the levy of tax and while one authority setting aside the levy of interest, other (Tax Board) restoring the same. The appellate authorities, with great respect to them, failed in discharging their obligation as the final fact finding authorities created under the provisions of the Act to apply their mind to the relevant facts and evidence on record, and rather they were swayed only by the extent of relief, which could be or could not be granted to the Assessee about the quantum of interest, forgetting that the tax itself was levied without any legal foundation. 15. From the orders passed by the three authorities below, this Court is of the opinion that it leaves much to be desired by these authorities discharging their quasi judicial functions, when they either adjudicate at the original assessment level or decide at the appellate forums created under the law. From the material on record and the contentions raised before this Court, this Court is satisfied that the Revenue has failed to establish that the transactions in question amounting to Rs.24,74,860/-of carpet yarn sent under branch transfer or S.O.S. transfers from Bikaner (Raj.) to Bhadoi (UP) units of the same assessee amounted to inter-State sales made by the Assessee in the period of in question, and therefore, the levy of tax cannot be held to be justified. The Assessee was therefore, clearly entitled either to the refund of the said tax paid by it under a mistake of law and fact, or at least, an adjustment of the said wrong deposit of tax @ 2% on the aforesaid quantum of Rs.24,74,860/- of branch transfers. 16. The present revision petitions of the Assessee therefore, clearly deserve to be allowed in toto and the same are accordingly allowed. 16. The present revision petitions of the Assessee therefore, clearly deserve to be allowed in toto and the same are accordingly allowed. The Assessee is held entitled to the refund/adjustment of the tax paid under the mistake of fact and law to the aforesaid extent in both the revision petitions and the Revenue is directed to give adjustment of such tax paid under mistake @ 2% on such branch transfers with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of adjustment given to it against the tax liability of the Assessee under the provisions of CST Act, 1956 incurred by the Assessee during the current assessment period. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer forthwith.