ORDER : T.R. RAVI, J. The assessee is a Company involved in the processing of marine and other edible commodities, principally for export. The assessee has a factory at Ezhupunna in Kerala and another factory at Bangalore in Karnataka. According to the assessee, processing happens in both the factories and depending on the requirement, stock transfers are made between the two factories and at times, fully processed items are re-transported to Cochin and then exported. Similarly, it is stated that they also carry out export from Bangalore. 2. The assessee has approached this Court in two revision petitions; one as against the assessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Both the revision petitions relate to the assessment year 2007-08. O.T.Rev.No.152 of 2016 is filed against the order dated 30.3.2016 in TA(VAT) No.325 of 2014 and O.T.Rev.No.153 of 2016 against the order dated 30.3.2016 in TA(VAT) No.326 of 2014. Since the issues involved in the two revisions are interrelated and arise from the same assessment year, we deem it appropriate to hear and dispose of the two revision petitions together. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee has purchased goods from unregistered dealers. They have been processed partially in the factory at Ezhupunna and transferred to Bangalore for further processing. The goods were transferred to Bangalore without a declaration in Form F. According to the petitioner, the goods were moved from their factory in Kerala to their factory at Bangalore and there is no sale involved in such movement of goods. The petitioner further contends that the movement of goods were in the course of export and the assessee is entitled to exemption, even without a declaration in Form F for reason of the movement of goods having been occasioned under purchase orders of export, as was being granted in the previous years. 4. The Assessing Officer proceeded to assess the petitioner under the KVAT Act, by adding the value of purchases carried out relating to stock transfer of processed goods to the tune of Rs.2,11,56,840/-, to the total turnover conceded, for bringing the same to tax under Section 6(2) of the Act. In appeal against the assessment, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), modified the assessment by reducing the addition to Rs.1,95,13,800/-, since a portion of the stock transfer had been carried out supported with Form F declarations. In appeal against the assessment, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), modified the assessment by reducing the addition to Rs.1,95,13,800/-, since a portion of the stock transfer had been carried out supported with Form F declarations. The stock transfers which were not supported by Form F declarations were alone taken into account for arriving at the taxable turnover under Section 6(2). The assessee challenged the appellate order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal insofar as the contention regarding the exemption under Section 6(2) of the Act was concerned. O.T.Rev.No.152 of 2016 is filed challenging the above order of the Appellate Tribunal in the regular VAT assessment. 5. The Assessing Officer had also proceeded against the petitioner under the CST Act. The Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the amounts representing the stock transfers which were not supported by Form F declarations; as inter-state sales. Appeal filed against the assessment order was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The assessee challenged the appellate order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The assessee has filed O.T.Rev.No.153 of 2016, challenging the above order of the Appellate Tribunal. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal are produced as Annexure X in the respective revision petitions. 6. Heard Sri Harisankar V. Menon on behalf of the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader Sri. Shamsudheen on behalf of the revenue. 7. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the proposal to tax the purchase relating to stock transfer was without any authority since the said transfer was in the course of export, which is exempted from taxation under Section 5(3) of the CST Act and Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. State of Kerala reported in [ 2018 (4) KHC 527 ]. 8. The questions of law that arise for consideration in these two revision petitions are re-framed as follows:- a. Whether the goods purchased from unregistered dealers, processed partially and moved from Kerala to Bangalore, exclusively for and in the course of export, are liable to be taxed under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act ? 8. The questions of law that arise for consideration in these two revision petitions are re-framed as follows:- a. Whether the goods purchased from unregistered dealers, processed partially and moved from Kerala to Bangalore, exclusively for and in the course of export, are liable to be taxed under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act ? b. When the movement of goods from one State to another on stock transfer is in the course of export whether a declaration in Form F issued under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957 is mandatory? c. Whether the stock transfer of goods effected by the assessee in the course of export is taxable as inter-state sales; if there is evidence to establish that the goods moved across the State, were in fact exported? 9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it will be helpful to extract the following statutory provisions. Section 6(2) KVAT Act 6. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods.- (1) xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx” (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1)- (a) every dealer who purchases taxable goods from any person other than a registered dealer shall pay tax on the purchase turnover of goods at the rates specified under sub-section (1). (b) every dealer who purchases taxable goods from any registered dealer other than a dealer liable to tax under this Act and dispatches the goods to any place outside the State otherwise than by way of sale in the course of interstate trade or export shall pay tax on the purchase turnover of the goods at the rates specified under sub-section (1), provided that the maximum rate leviable under this clause shall not exceed five percent. xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Section 5(3) of the CST Act. “5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export.- xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place, after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.” Section 6A of the CST Act. 6A. 6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. — (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods and 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. (2) If the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by a dealer under sub-section (1) are true and that no inter-State sale has been effected, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect and thereupon the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall preclude reassessment by the assessing authority on the ground of discovery of new facts or revision by a higher authority on the ground that the findings of the assessing authority are contrary to law, and such reassessment or revision may be done in accordance with the provisions of general sales tax law of the State.” Rule 12 (5) of CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. “12 (1)xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx (5). The declaration referred to in sub-section (1) of section 6-A shall be in Form ‘F’: Provided that a single declaration may cover transfer of goods, by a dealer, to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, effected during a period of one calendar month: xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx” 10. A consideration of the above provisions clearly shows that Section 6(2) provides for taxing every purchase made by a dealer from any person other than a registered dealer. So also, when goods are purchased from any registered dealer not liable to tax under the VAT Act and despatched to any place outside the State otherwise than by way of sale in the course of interstate trade or export, the purchase turnover thereon shall also be assessable to tax. The statutory provision does not leave any room for ambiguity. Admittedly, the assessee has purchased goods from unregistered dealers. It is contended that such goods have been transferred out of State on stock transfer, admittedly not in the course of interstate sale, but in the course of export. However the stock transfer was not proved and hence there is no question of the purchased goods having been established to have moved, as such or after processing, outside the State for the purpose of export. 11. Under the CST Act, the contention of the petitioner is that the stocks were transferred from the factory in Kerala to the factory at Bangalore in the course of export. The petitioner contends that even the purchases were effected on the basis of confirmed orders of export and hence they qualify for exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 5(3), says that the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India should also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale took place after, and, was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. For availing the benefit under Section 5(3), on the facts in the above case the assessee cannot rest contend by establishing merely that prior to the purchase there was an order for export. For availing the benefit under Section 5(3), on the facts in the above case the assessee cannot rest contend by establishing merely that prior to the purchase there was an order for export. It has to be proved that the goods purchased or that processed from it, were in fact sent outside the State to the petitioner's unit in Bangalore; from where the export is said to have been effected. 12. Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that where any dealer claims he is not liable to pay tax, on the ground that the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business, or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving such fact shall be on the dealer and for that purpose, he may furnish such documents, including a declaration in the prescribed form along with the evidence of despatch of such goods. Section 6A was amended by Finance Act, 2002, by providing that, failure of a dealer to furnish such declaration shall be deemed for all purposes of the Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale. Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, prescribes that the declaration referred to in Section 6A shall be in Form F. 13. The effect of failure of a dealer to furnish a declaration in Form F came up for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in [ (2004) 3 SCC 1 ]. In paragraph 74 of the above decision, the Apex Court held thus: “74. Section 6-A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of Section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of “sale” would not be exigible to tax, the burden whereof would evidently be on the assessee. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of “sale” would not be exigible to tax, the burden whereof would evidently be on the assessee. We have noticed hereinbefore that whereas prior to the amendment in sub-section (1) of Section 6-A the dealer had an option of filing a declaration in Form F; after such amendment, he does not have such option, insofar as in terms of the amended provision, if the dealer fails and/or neglects to file such a declaration, the transaction would be deemed to be an inter-State sale. It is to be noticed that for the aforementioned purpose also, Parliament advisedly used the expression “deemed”. If the expression “deemed” is interpreted differently, an incongruity would ensue.” 14. In the light of the above decision, to establish that the movement of goods were in the nature of stock transfer which is not taxable, production of Form F declaration is imperative; the failure to produce which will have the consequence of such movement being deemed as occasioned for inter-state sale. In the absence of F form the legal fiction is that the transaction is one of inter-state sale. In the case on hand, for the purpose of treating the purchase from unregistered dealers as the penultimate transaction to the export, to qualify for the benefit under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessee has not only to prove the export, but also the fact that the goods exported were the goods which were stock transferred after purchase from the unregistered dealers. Since the assessee has not proved the stock transfer by producing Form F declaration, the question whether there was export or not becomes irrelevant. So also, having regard to the legal fiction created by Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the movement of the goods purchased from the unregistered dealers will have to be deemed as inter-state sale. However this cannot be claimed as exempt under Section 5(3), as the penultimate transaction, since the stock transfer to the Bangalore Unit of the assessee is not proved and the goods exported from that Unit, obviously, are not those sold inter-state. However this cannot be claimed as exempt under Section 5(3), as the penultimate transaction, since the stock transfer to the Bangalore Unit of the assessee is not proved and the goods exported from that Unit, obviously, are not those sold inter-state. The result is that irrespective of the export, the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6(2) of the KVAT Act as also the tax on inter-state sale under the CST Act. 15. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (of which one among us was a member), in MRF Ltd., Kottayam Vs. State of Kerala reported in [ 2018(4) KHC 527 ], to contend that all that is required to be proved is that the stock transfer was in pursuance of an export order. The above decision was in an appeal from an order of the Clarificatory Authority, whereas, here the revision is from assessment orders, the facts of which are very evident. The assessee therein was manufacturing products in various units all over the country, which products were then stock transferred to a godown in Tamil Nadu from where exports were made. The assessee claimed input tax credit of the tax paid on purchase of raw materials from registered dealers to the extent of the stock transfer on consignment, made to the godown of the assessee at Tamil Nadu, on the ground that the stock transfer was in the course of export. The Clarificatory Authority found that the stock transfer can be said to be in the course of export only if in certainty the goods are headed to the foreign destination and not diverted for domestic use. The Clarificatory Authority declined the claim on the ground that the goods joined the export stream only from the godown at Puzhal in Tamil Nadu since the manufactured goods were pooled at Tamil Nadu and dispatched pursuant to export orders. The question whether there were F Forms supporting the stock transfer never arose, since the assessee had approached the Clarificatory Authority projecting the contemplated course of events. 16. The Division Bench, in MRF Ltd. considered the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Nipha Exports Private Ltd reported in [2007 8 VST 466(SC)], Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. The question whether there were F Forms supporting the stock transfer never arose, since the assessee had approached the Clarificatory Authority projecting the contemplated course of events. 16. The Division Bench, in MRF Ltd. considered the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Nipha Exports Private Ltd reported in [2007 8 VST 466(SC)], Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [AIR 1961 Supreme Court 315], State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory reported in [AIR 1953 Supreme Court 333] and Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. Conoor(Nilgiris) vs. Sales Tax Officer reported in [AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1752]. This Court found that essentially the question whether stock transfer is on the basis of the export order would depend upon whether the stock transfer itself was made in pursuance of a purchase order from the foreign buyer. Even applying that dictum in the present case, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 6(2) for reason of it being the penultimate transaction to export, what is first to be established is the stock transfer of the goods from one unit of the assessee to the other situated outside the State and the subsequent despatch of the same on export to the foreign destination. Undoubtedly, even the purchase of raw materials should be after receipt of the export order. But we need not go to that examination in the present case. Here export is asserted to be from the Bangalore unit of the assessee, to which the processed goods are said to have been stock transferred, after purchase of raw material from unregistered dealers; which stock transfer has not been proved at all, for reason of there being no F-Forms produced. In such circumstances, there is no question of any reconsideration by the Assessing Authority on the basis of the export order; since the goods exported are not that moved across the State; which movement has been found to be pursuant to a sale. The dictum laid down in the above said case is not applicable for reason that in the case on hand the assessee has not produced Form F declaration to support the alleged stock transfer. 17. The dictum laid down in the above said case is not applicable for reason that in the case on hand the assessee has not produced Form F declaration to support the alleged stock transfer. 17. As categorically held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland (supra) in the absence of a declaration form F, the assessing authority has no other option but to treat the movement of such goods as occasioned as a result of interstate sale. All the three questions that arise for decision in these revision petitions are answered against the assessee and in favour of the State. We hold that the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 6(2) for the purchases made from unregistered dealers, that the furnishing of Form F declaration is mandatory for the purpose of treating movement of goods from one State to another as stock transfer; even if the said goods are later exported and that the assessee is liable to pay tax on interstate sale in the light of the legal fiction created by the operation of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in the above two Revision Petitions. The revision petitions are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.