JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the manufacture of Kutch (commonly known as ‘Kattha’) for which Khair Wood is a raw material. Petitioner’s manufacturing unit is situate in District Agra (Uttar Pradesh). Petitioner had a valid recognition certificate issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which entitled him to purchase Khair Wood at concessional rate of trade tax by producing Form III-B as per Rule 25-B of U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. 2. U.P. Forest Corporation issued an auction notice on 05.09.2000 inviting bids for sale of various lots of Khair Wood. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner participated in the auction held on 18.09.2000 at Tanakpur Depot of U.P. Forest Corporation, while Tanakpur was part of State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner’s bid for certain lots of Khair Wood, being the highest, was accepted and sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by Depot Officer of U.P. Forest Corporation on 17.10.2000. However, petitioner moved the Khair Wood purchased in the said auction to its manufacturing unit at Agra (Uttar Pradesh) after State Reorganisation, on 15.11.2000. 3. On the strength of Form III-B, produced by petitioner while purchasing Khair Wood from Tanakpur Depot, he was asked to pay concessional rate of Trade Tax @ 2.5 percent under Section 4-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which was paid by petitioner. State of Uttar Pradesh was subsequently reorganised as per U.P. State Reorganisation Act w.e.f. 09.11.2000 and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation was established for the new State under provisions of U.P. Forest Corporation Act, 1974 in March, 2001. 4. Divisional Marketing Manager, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation raised a demand of Rs.86,760/- vide letter dated 21.10.2002 on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to concessional rate of tax and he was asked to pay the difference amount of tax, failing which proceedings would be initiated against him for recovery of the balance amount. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- I. To issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 21.10.2002 issued by the respondent no. 2 contained as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. II. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- I. To issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 21.10.2002 issued by the respondent no. 2 contained as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. II. To issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order alleged to be passed by respondent no. 5, as mentioned in the impugned notice, after the summoning original of the same from the respondents. III. To issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.02.2001 passed by respondent no. 3 contained as annexure no. 14 to the writ petition, after summoning the original of the same from the respondents. IV. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents for imposing the enhanced Trade Tax on the petitioner in regard to the Khair wood auctioned on 18.09.2000 by the U.P. Forest Corporation. 5. Learned State Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 submits that the demand raised by Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation is consequential to the show cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Khatima to U.P. Forest Corporation, which is enclosed as Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5. 6. The said show cause notice is premised on the assumption that interstate sale of Khair Wood was effected after State reorganisation, therefore, concessional rate of tax would not be applicable on the strength of Form-III B. 7. Learned State Counsel contended that in case of interstate sale benefit of concessional rate of tax would be available only when registered dealer furnishes Form-‘C’, issued by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Thus, he submits that since the goods were moved from Tanakpur (Uttarakhand) to Agra (U.P.) after State reorganisation, therefore, concessional rate of tax cannot be claimed on the basis of Form-III B, as it is pplicable only for intrastate. 8. Thus, the sole question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the sale was complete before reorganisation of State of U.P. when point of sale and point of delivery, both were located within State of Uttar Pradesh. 8. Thus, the sole question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the sale was complete before reorganisation of State of U.P. when point of sale and point of delivery, both were located within State of Uttar Pradesh. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, then it will be a case of intrastate sale and petitioner would be entitled to benefit of concessional rate of tax on the strength of Form III-B produced by him. 9. Section 64(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that in the case of sale by auction, the sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in any other customary manner and until such announcement is made, any bidder may retract his bid. 10. 9. Section 64(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that in the case of sale by auction, the sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in any other customary manner and until such announcement is made, any bidder may retract his bid. 10. Section 2(h) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 defines the expression ‘sale’, which is reproduced below:- “2(h) “Sale” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods (otherwise than by way of a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge) for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and includes- (i) a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (ii) a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods, or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (iii) the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments; (iv) a transfer or the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (v) the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; and (vi) the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) where such supply or service is for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration; Explanation I - A sale or purchase shall be deemed to have taken place in the State,- (i) in a case falling under sub-clause (ii) if the goods are in the State at the time of transfer of property in such goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of the works contract, notwithstanding that the agreement for the works contract has been wholly or in part entered into outside the State; (ii) in a case falling under sub-clause (iv), if the goods are used by the lessee within the State during any period, notwithstanding that the agreement for the lease has been entered into outside the State or that the goods have been delivered to lessee outside the State. Explanation II.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, two independent sales or purchases shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have taken place- (a) when the goods are transferred from a principal to his selling, agent and from the selling agent to his purchaser, (b) when the goods are transferred from the seller to a buying agent and from the buying agent to his principal, if the agent is found, in either of the cases aforesaid,-- (i) to have sold the goods at one rate and passed on the sale proceeds to his principal at another rate; or (ii) to have purchased the goods at one rate and passed them on to his principal at another rate; or (iii) not to have accounted to his principal for the entire collection or deductions made by him, in the sales or purchases effected by him on behalf of his principal; or (iv) to have acted for a fictitious or non-existent principal;” 11. Thus, as per Sale of Goods Act, ownership of the property put up for sale in an auction passes from the owner to the highest bidder on the fall of the hammer. 12. Under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, sale of goods can be for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. 13. As per conditions of the auction notice, enclosed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 3 & 4, ten percent of the bid amount would have to be deposited by the successful bidder with the fall of hammer and the balance amount would have to be deposited within 24 days. There is nothing in the conditions of auction to indicate that sale would be complete only upon deposit of the entire sale consideration, although it stipulates that the balance sale consideration would have to be deposited by the successful bidder before removing the goods from the Depot of U.P. Forest Corporation. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that sale was complete with the fall of hammer on 18.09.2000 when petitioner’s bid for certain lots of Khair Wood was found to be the highest. Thus, according to him, the date on which the goods were moved from Tanakpur to Agra becomes irrelevant. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that sale was complete with the fall of hammer on 18.09.2000 when petitioner’s bid for certain lots of Khair Wood was found to be the highest. Thus, according to him, the date on which the goods were moved from Tanakpur to Agra becomes irrelevant. He further contends that on the date of sale, point of sale and point of delivery were located within same State, namely, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, it would be an intra-state sale and petitioner is liable to pay concessional rate of trade tax on the strength of Form III-B and insistence by the Revenue on Form-‘C’, issued under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is misplaced. He further submitted that Form-‘C’ would be required only in case of interstate sale and not intrastate sale. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the Competent Authority in U.P. Forest Corporation issued sale certificate in favour of petitioner on 17.10.2000, which proves that sale was complete before State reorganisation. 15. This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The sale of Khair Wood was complete before State reorganisation, when point of sale and point of delivery were within the same State and the purchaser and the seller, both were registered under provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, therefore, it cannot be treated as interstate sale, as alleged by the Revenue. 16. It is not in dispute that petitioner had a valid recognition certificate issued under Section 4-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act, which entitles a manufacturer to procure raw material on a concessional rate of tax. Since it was an intra-state sale, therefore, insistence on Form-‘C’ by the Revenue is unwarranted, as it is applicable only in case of interstate sale. Thus viewed, petitioner is entitled to benefit of concessional rate of tax on the strength of Form-IIB provided by him. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the show cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Khatima to Depot Officer of U.P. Forest Corporation, Tanakpur and the consequential demand raised by the Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vide communication dated 21.10.2002 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and petitioner is entitled to benefit of concessional rate of tax on the strength of Form III-B produced by him, while purchasing Khair Wood. 18. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The demand raised by respondent no. 2, vide impugned communication dated 21.10.2002 as well as show cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Khatima are hereby quashed. Parties shall bear their own cost.