JUDGMENT : HARSHA DEVANI, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.1.2016 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Revision Application No.67 of 2015 as well as order dated 22.6.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No.17 of 2016. The respondent, at the relevant time, was a dealer registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act as well as Central Sale Tax Act. Vide invoice No.623 dated 7.2.2007 the respondent sold iron and steel material worth Rs.5,25,81,483/- to M/s Reliance Petroleum Limited, a unit of Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Jamnagar. Accordingly, the purchaser issued Form ‘I’ prescribed under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the rules’) read with section 8(8) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Assessing Authority computed assessment on 7.8.2010 allowing sales as supported by the required statutory forms. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, however, took the order dated 7.8.2010 in revision in exercise of powers under section 75 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “GVAT Act”) and by order dated 3.8.2015, raised a demand of Rs.2,25,78,301/-. The respondent carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal and succeeded. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent moved a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, being Miscellaneous Application No.17 of 2016, seeking refund of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by it before the Tribunal by way of pre-deposit. By the impugned order dated 22.6.2016, the respondent was directed to either refund the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner or to produce the stay order of the High Court of Gujarat against the order of the Tribunal. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader assailed the impugned order by submitting that Form ‘I’ submitted by the respondent before the authorities was not in consonance with the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules read with sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act. 3. Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader assailed the impugned order by submitting that Form ‘I’ submitted by the respondent before the authorities was not in consonance with the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules read with sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act. It was submitted that in view of the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, Form ‘I’ was required to be duly countersigned and certified by the authority specified by the Central Government authorizing establishment of unit in the SEZ. However, in the facts of the present case, Form ‘I’ has not been countersigned by the authority prescribed under the rules and therefore, is not valid. 3.1 Referring to the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act, it was pointed out that in case of sale during the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the dealer is required to furnish to the prescribed authority a declaration in the prescribed manner on the prescribed form obtained from the authority specified by the Central Government under subsection (6) of section 8 of the Act, duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold. Referring to sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules it was submitted that a declaration is required to be furnished in the prescribed Form ‘I’. It was submitted that such form is required to be countersigned and certified by the authority in the SEZ, whereas in the facts of the present case such requirement has not been satisfied. Under the circumstances, in the absence of valid Form ‘I’, the revisional authority was wholly justified in raising the demand. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Insofar as the subsequent order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application is concerned, not submissions were advanced to assail the same. 4. Opposing the petition, Mr. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Insofar as the subsequent order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application is concerned, not submissions were advanced to assail the same. 4. Opposing the petition, Mr. A.J. Shaikh, learned advocate for the respondent invited the attention of the court to the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, to point out that prior to 7.6.2005, the sub-rule provided for Form ‘I’ to be countersigned and certified by the authority specified by the Central Government authorizing the establishment of the unit in the SEZ, whereas, the said sub-rule came to be substituted with effect from 7.6.2005 and the above requirement came to be done away with. It was submitted that the amendment in the rules was made with a view to simplify the procedure. Reference was made to a communication dated 13.4.2009 of the Development Commissioner, RJIL SEZ, Jamnagar, addressed to the developer, M/s Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Limited, informing them that the procedure of issuing Form ‘I’ is retained with the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the State of Gujarat and that since the Commissioner of Sales Tax has the complete data bank of all the units that are registered as Sales Tax assessees, issuance of such form by the Commissioner of Sales Tax will ensure a proper monitoring of any misuse by the units. It was submitted that therefore, the concerned authority of the SEZ, Jamnagar has clarified that it is the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which is the authority which would issue Form ‘I’. The attention of the court was drawn to a copy of Form ‘I’ issued by the purchaser to the respondent to point out that the same was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. It was submitted that therefore, the provisions of subrule (11) of rule 12 of the rules stood complied with and that the Tribunal, after duly considering the provisions of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules has held in favour of the assessee. It was urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal being just, legal and proper, does not warrant any interference. 5. It was urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal being just, legal and proper, does not warrant any interference. 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions it may be noted that while the revisional authority has exercised powers of revision on several grounds, the sole ground on which the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is assailed is that Form ‘I’ submitted by the respondent did not meet with the requirements as prescribed under the rules. 6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has recorded thus: “14. The second dispute raised by the learned Deputy Commissioner is that Form ‘I’ has not been issued by the appropriate authority, i.e., SEZ Authority and hence it is not a valid Form. This objection also deserves to be overruled only on the ground that such requirement as per Rule 12(11) of the CST Rules was prior to 7/6/2005. Rule 12(11) was amended with effect from 7/6/2005 and from that date onward, it does not enjoin upon the SEZ Authority that Form ‘I’ needs countersigned and certified by the SEZ Authority. The procedure of producing Form ‘I’ was simplified. The issuance of Form ‘I’ has been continued by SEZ Authority and with mutual understanding the Form is now issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and hence the Form produced in the assessment was quite in order and it cannot be considered as defective.” 7.. The procedure of producing Form ‘I’ was simplified. The issuance of Form ‘I’ has been continued by SEZ Authority and with mutual understanding the Form is now issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and hence the Form produced in the assessment was quite in order and it cannot be considered as defective.” 7.. Before adverting to the merits of the impugned order, it may be germane to refer to the provisions of section 8 of the Act which bears the heading “Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce”, and to the extent the same is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: “(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be two per cent of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section.” “(6)Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer in respect of sale of any goods made by such dealer, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to a registered dealer for the purpose of setting up, operation, maintenance, manufacture, trading, production, processing, assembling, repairing, reconditioning, reengineering, packaging or for use as packing material or packing accessories in a unit located in any special economic zone or for development, operation and maintenance of special economic zone by the developer of the special economic zone, if such registered dealer has been authorized to establish such unit or to develop, operate and maintain such special economic zone by the authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf. (7) The goods referred to in sub-section (6) shall be the goods of such class or classes of goods as specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer referred to in that sub-section. (7) The goods referred to in sub-section (6) shall be the goods of such class or classes of goods as specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer referred to in that sub-section. (8) The provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7) shall not apply to any sale of goods made in the course of inter- State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling such goods furnishes to the prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (4) a declaration in the prescribed manner on the prescribed form obtained from the authority specified by the Central Government under sub-section (6), duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold. Explanation.— For the purposes of sub-section (6), the expression “special economic zone” has the meaning assigned to it in clause (iii) to Explanation 2 to the proviso to section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).” 8. In view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 8 of the Act, no tax under the Act is payable by any dealer in respect of sale of any goods made to a registered dealer for the purpose of setting up, operation, maintenance, manufacture, trading, production, processing, assembling, repairing, reconditioning, re-engineering, packaging or for use as packing material or packing accessories in a unit located in any special economic zone or for development, operation and maintenance of special economic zone by the developer of the special economic zone, if such registered dealer has been authorized to establish such unit or to develop, operate and maintain such special economic zone by the authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has sold goods to a unit in the special economic zone in Jamnagar. 9. Sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act provides that the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7) would apply provided the dealer selling such goods furnishes to the prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (4) a declaration in the prescribed manner on the prescribed form obtained from the authority specified by the Central Government under sub-section (6) duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold. Such form is prescribed under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules. Such form is prescribed under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules. Sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, prior to its amendment with effect from 7.6.2005 read thus: “(11) The dealer, selling goods in the course of inter- State trade or commerce to a registered dealer under subsection (6) or under sub-section (8) of section 8 or under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 76A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), shall furnish a declaration for the purposes of subsection (8) of the said section 8 in “Form I” duly countersigned and certified by the Authority specified by the Central Government authorizing the establishment of the unit in the Special Economic Zone notified under section 76A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) that the sale of goods is for the purpose of establishing a unit in such zone.” 10. After it amendment with effect from 7.6.2005, sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules reads thus: “The declaration referred to in sub-section (8) of section 8 of the Act, shall be in Form I.” Thus, while sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, as it existed prior to 7.6.2005 required Form ‘I’ to be countersigned by the Authority specified by the Central Government authorizing the establishment of the unit in the Special Economic Zone notified under section 76A of the Customs Act, 1962 that the sale of goods is for the purpose of establishing a unit in such zone, sub-rule (11) as amended does not provide for any such requirement. All that the sub-rule requires is that the declaration should be in Form I. 11. Form I prescribed under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules refers to the seal of the issuing authority. As to who is the issuing authority is no longer specified in the said rule. At this juncture reference may be made to the communication dated 13.4.2009 of the Development Commissioner, RJIL SEZ, Jamnagar addressed to the developer, M/s Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., a copy whereof has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent. As to who is the issuing authority is no longer specified in the said rule. At this juncture reference may be made to the communication dated 13.4.2009 of the Development Commissioner, RJIL SEZ, Jamnagar addressed to the developer, M/s Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., a copy whereof has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent. Vide the said communication, which has been made in respect of the subject “Clarification in issue of Form – I for CST exemption – reg.” the Development Commissioner has stated that by a letter dated 6.2.2008, the Industry and Mines Department, Government of Gujarat has clarified that “the procedure of issuing Form ‘I’ is retained with the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the State of Gujarat. Since the Commissioner of Sales Tax has the complete data bank of all the units that are registered as Sales Tax assesses, issuance of such form by Commissioner of Sales Tax will ensure a proper monitoring of any misuse by the units”. 12. Thus, it appears that sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules has been amended for the sake of convenience, and the requirement that the document (Form – I) be countersigned by the authority specified by the Central Government authorizing the establishment of unit in the SEZ, has been done away with. Therefore, there is no longer any such requirement under the said sub-rule, nor can such requirement can be read into it. The fulcrum of the arguments of the petitioner is that Form ‘I’ as submitted by the respondent does not meet with the requirements as the issuing authority is not the authority prescribed under the rules. As noticed hereinabove, sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rule after its amendment with effect from 7.6.2005, no longer refers to any specific authority as the issuing authority. 13. A perusal of copy of the Form ‘I’ submitted by the respondent indicates that the same has been issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and the same is duly filled in and signed by the registered dealer to whom such goods are sold as contemplated under section 8(8) of the Act. In view thereof, all the requirements as envisaged under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, stood satisfied. In view thereof, all the requirements as envisaged under sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules, stood satisfied. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has recorded thus: “(14) The second dispute raised by the Learned Deputy Commissioner is that Form ‘I’ has not been issued by the appropriate authority i.e. SEZ Authority and hence it is not a valid Form. This objection also deserves to be over-ruled only on the ground that such requirement as per Rule 12[11] of the CST Rules was prior to 7/6/2005. Rule 12[11] was amended with effect from 7/6/2005 and from that date onward, it does not enjoin upon the SEZ Authority that From ‘I’ needs countersigned and certified by the SEZ Authority. The procedure of producing Form ‘I’ was simplified. The issuance of Form ‘I’ has been continued by SEZ Authority and with mutual understanding the form is now issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and hence the form produced in the assessment was quite in order and it cannot be considered as defective.” The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal while holding that the requirements of sub-rule (11) of rule 12 of the rules have been satisfied is in consonance with the above view taken by this court. The revisional authority was therefore, not justified in holding that the requirement of such rule 12(11) of the rules was not complied with and taxing the transaction and the Tribunal was wholly justified in setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad interim relief granted earlier, stands vacated.