ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, the same are decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad passed in Second Appeal Nos. 681 and 682 of 2005 dated 28/3/2016, by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said appeals confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner (Appeal-I), Ahmedabad dated 20/6/2005 as well as the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Unit-5, Ahmedabad dated 8/11/2004 for the Financial Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the dealer has preferred the present appeals with the following proposed questions of law :- "(a). Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in holding that the re-assessment order under Central Sales Tax Act passed by the Sales Tax Officer was valid and legal, though the said order was passed without issuing legal statutory notice in Form VI-B under Rule 9(A) of the Central Sales Tax (Gujarat) Rules, 1970? (b). Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in upholding the legality of the re-assessment order without deciding the legality of re-assessment vis-à-vis provisions under Section 67 for revision in rejecting the applicant conclusion that it is not a case of re-assessment under section 44 without deciding the legality of the reassessment order? (c). Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim of consignment sales outside the State without considering the supporting proofs and evidences produced by the appellants? (d). Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty imposed is consequential?" 3. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the dealer has pressed and made submission on the proposed question No. (c) only i.e. Whether on facts and circumstances of this case, the learned tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim of consignment sales outside the State without considering the supporting proofs and evidences produced by the appellants? 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Tax Appeal No. 1512 of 2010 arising out of transactions during the period of 1998-1999 are narrated, which are as under :- 4.1. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Tax Appeal No. 1512 of 2010 arising out of transactions during the period of 1998-1999 are narrated, which are as under :- 4.1. The appellant - dealer during the period of 1998-1999 sold goods to the tune of Rs. 16,20,14,511/-, out of which according to the dealer, Rs. 2,74,84,499/- was under consignment sale which falls under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act" for short). According to the dealer, as the goods were transferred under section 6A, they deducted the same amount from the total turnover and did not pay the sale tax on the said value. 4.2. The Sales Tax Officer passed and confirmed the assessment orders on 22/3/2001 under Rule 36 in terms of section 41 for financial year 1998-1999 as per the value declared by the appellant in the returns filed by it from time to time. That thereafter a notice in form No. 37 under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 was issued and served upon the appellants, by which the appellants were called upon to remain present before the sales tax officer to show the cause as to why the amount of consignment sale for the financial year 1998-1999 of Rs. 18,12,521/- should not be included in the taxable turnover. The appellant appeared before the Sales Tax Officer through its Director. 4.3. According to the appellants, they produced documents showing that the documents with regard to transfer of goods to three customers were on consignment sales and therefore, they were not required to pay sales tax. The appellants also produced F-Forms with full particulars in support of their case that the goods transferred to three customers were on consignment sales and therefore, it cannot be said to be inter-State sale and therefore, they were not liable to pay CST on the same. However, on inquiry it was found by the Sales Tax Officer that F-Forms produced by the dealer were fake and therefore, did not accept the case on behalf of the appellant that the goods transferred to three customers were on consignment sale and therefore, it cannot be said to be inter-State sale. The Sales Tax Officer confirmed the amount of Sales Tax on consignment sale of Rs. 18,12,521/- and imposed penalty of Rs. The Sales Tax Officer confirmed the amount of Sales Tax on consignment sale of Rs. 18,12,521/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 29,000/- and also demanded interest under section 47(4B) of the Act. 4.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the A.O. the dealer preferred appeal before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority dismissed the said appeal by reasoned order. On an appeal, the learned tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the dealer and has confirmed the order passed by both the authorities below. Hence, the dealer has preferred the present appeal. 4.5. Similar orders are passed with respect to subsequent financial years, which is subject matter of Tax Appeal No. 1518 of 2010. 5. Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant dealer has vehemently submitted that the authorities below have materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that as such the dealer produced other documents to show that the goods in case of three transactions were consignment sale and as such were not inter-State sale and therefore, on the aforesaid, CST was not liable to be paid. It is submitted that other vital documentary evidences have not been considered. It is submitted that therefore the consignment for the three transactions in question were as such not by way of sale/inter-State sale. Therefore, it requested to admit/allow the present appeals. 5.1. Mr. Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that as such the appellant - dealer produced F-Forms in support of their case that the transactions were not inter-State sale, however, the said F-Forms produced by the dealer were found to be fake, which are not disputed by the appellant dealer. It is submitted that therefore, when the F-Forms submitted by the appellant dealer were found to be fake, considering the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, more particularly section 6A of the Sales Tax Act, transactions are rightly held to be inter-State Sale. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present appeals. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the case on behalf of the dealer that with respect to three transactions for which subsequent additions were made by the A.O., were, in fact, not inter-State sale. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that it was the case on behalf of the dealer that with respect to three transactions for which subsequent additions were made by the A.O., were, in fact, not inter-State sale. In support of their case, the dealer produced F-Forms. However, it is required to be noted that on inquiry it was found that the F-Forms produced by the dealer were fake and forged one. As per section 6A of the CST Act, the burden is upon the dealer to prove by producing evidence/prescribed particulars in the prescribed Form obtained from the appropriate authority (F-Form), if the dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under CST Act. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the dealer did produce F-Forms containing prescribed particulars. However, on inquiry it was found by the Sales Tax Officer that F-Forms produced by the dealer were fake and forged one. Therefore, the dealer could not prove and/or substantiate that on the transactions in question the dealer is not liable to pay CST and/or could not prove that the transactions were not inter-State sale. The F-Forms produced by the dealer were found to be fake and forged one, has not been disputed by the dealer. Under the circumstances, and considering the provisions of section 6A of the CST Act and when the F-Forms produced by the appellant dealer were found to be fake and forged and thereafter consequently when the A.O. has made additions with respect to the aforesaid three transactions treating the same as inter-State sale, it cannot be said that the authorities below have committed any error which calls for interference of this Court in excise of the appellate jurisdiction. No substantial question of law arise in these appeals, as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant dealer. Under the circumstances, both these appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.