R. K. Agrawal, J. - In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the circular letter dated November 28, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of Trade tax, U.P., Lucknow, wherein it has been mentioned that, under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("the Central Act"), form F is required to be filed in respect of all transfer of goods which are otherwise than by way of sale and also applies to all goods sent or received for job work or goods returned.

As all these petitions do not involve adjudication of any facts but raise a common question of law, i.e., interpretation of the provisions of section 6A of the Central Act, they have been heard together and are being decided at the admission stage itself.

C.M.W.P. No. 302 of 2007 is being treated as a leading petition and its facts are given below :

The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron billets and ingots. It is also engaged in the activity of sale of iron and steel rounds, bars, flats, etc. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") and also under the Central Act. According to the petitioner, during the assessment year 2004-05 it had sent iron and steel ingots to various firms situated outside the State of U.P. for the purpose of converting them into iron and steel rounds, bars and flats. Those firms were directed to return the converted goods. It also received iron scrap from various firms situate outside the State of U.P. for the purpose of converting them into iron and steel billets and ingots with a direction to return the converted goods to those firms. Under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the cenvat credit is admissible on fulfilment of certain requirements. Central excise duty is also leviable. It had received and made payment in respect of job work done and got done by it, respectively, and the claim is that no part of the payment made or received by it was on account of any action on the part of the petitioner or its job workers as agents or principal of the petitioner and vice versa. It had not effected any sale while sending goods for job work or while receiving goods for doing job work. It had filed its monthly return, both under the Act and the Central Act. However, the petitioner did not submit or obtain any form F in respect of the transaction of job work as it did not involve any sale. Vide notice dated June 23, 2006, the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) 1-A, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 3, initiated the assessment proceeding in which the petitioner, participated. The petitioner was asked to submit form F in respect of the ex-U.P. transaction of job work performed by it or got done by others to which it submitted a reply stating therein that no form F is required for such transaction. The explanation was rejected. However, respondent No. 3 granted time up to March 31, 2007 for submitting form F. Another notice was issued on February 27, 2007 calling upon the petitioner to submit declaration form F. The action of respondent No. 3 in demanding form F in respect of transaction of job work failing which tax would be imposed, including the circular dated November 28, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

In some of the writ petitions, apart from the transaction of job work there have been return of goods from outside the State of U.P. on which the respective assessing authorities have directed the petitioners to furnish declaration form F failing which the tax under the Central Act would be imposed or had been imposed.

We have heard Sarvasri S. D. Singh, Nishant Mishra and Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A. C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the respondents. Shri S. D. Singh, learned counsel, who lead the arguments, submitted that the activities of job work undertaken by the