Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128980 Court No. - 7 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 899 of 2013 Revisionist :- M/S Ganesh Industries Pansaritola Mirzapur Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. With Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 993 of 2013 Revisionist :- M/S Mirzapur Metal Syndicate Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Since the similar issues are involved in both the aforesaid revisions, both are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. For the convenience, the facts from STRE No. 899 of 2013 are being delineated; 3. Heard Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party. 4. By means of instant revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, Bench-II, Allahabad in Second Appeal No.037/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 (Central). 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant revision was admitted on 17.11.2013 on the following question of law: "(i) Whether the tribunal is justified in remanding the case to the assessing officer giving second innings to the department to contest it despite the fact that Form F issued by the consignee agents was accepted and held to be bonafide and there was no collusion and connivance between the parties?" 6. Senior Counsel further submits that the revisionist, in the normal course of business, was sending the goods outside the State of Uttar Pradesh as a stock transfer/consignment sale and in support thereof, Form-F was submitted along with transport bilties, which has not been disputed. In certain cases, if Form-F was not there as a supporting documents along with all other documents as a stock transfer/consignment sale, the same cannot be treated as inter-state sale. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the burden of proof discharged by the applicant from adducing the Form-F, and the same is not in dispute. 8. He further submits that the issuance of Form- F or genuineness of the Form- F has not been disputed at any stage and therefore, the tribunal was not justified in remanding the matter instead of deciding the issue one for all. 9. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of T.N. and Another; (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1. 10. He further submits that once no finding has been recorded that the Form-F submitted in support of his claim is false, fictitious or forged, it cannot be said to bad 11. Per contra, learned Standing Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order by submitting that the impugned order has rightly been passed and therefore the remand is justified. He further submits that each and every transaction has to be looked into independently whether it is inter State sale or the goods have moved not as sale, and the turn over as a whole cannot be looked into and therefore, he submits that the tribunal has rightly remanded the matter to the assessing authority. 12. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 13. It is nobodies case as the tribunal being the last court on fact and law. Once the tribunal is competent to verify the facts also, it ought to have decided the matter one for all instead of remanding the same to the assessing authority. 14. The record further reveals that the Form-F was filed and accepted and if the tribunal was not satisfied, it ought to have summoned the report and record from the Assessing Authority, and verified each and every transactions itself, instead of remanding the matter. Further, the tribunal has not recorded any finding with regard to Form-F submitted by the revisionist are false, fictitious or forged. 15. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of M/S. Bharat Iron Stores Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1994 U.P.T.C.-130; Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Rana Steel, Saharanpur, 2003 NTN (Vol.22)-218 and M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2004 U.P.T.C.-317, wherein it has been held that the benefit of Forms cannot be denied until and unless the same is shown, there was collusion between the parties or while accepting the form any negligence on the part of the parties is found. 16. Further, the tribunal, being the last court on fact, was duty bound to decide the issue one for all, instead of remanding to the Assessing Authority. 17. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the judgments cited above, matters require re-consideration by the tribunal. 18. Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. 19. The aforesaid revisions are allowed. The matters are remanded to the tribunal for deciding the issue so far as stock transfer, which has not been accepted, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 20. Any amount deposited by the revisionists pursuant to the impugned orders, shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the Tribunal. 21. The question of law is answered in favour of the revisionists. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad