Finality of section 6-A determinations limits reopening to fraud, suppression, or other recognised vitiating grounds.

An order under section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, made after enquiry and acceptance of form F, was treated as a conclusive determination of the jurisdictional fact whether the goods movement was otherwise than by sale. The assessment cannot be reopened under section 9(2) or State reassessment powers merely because the authority later changes its view; reopening is confined to recognised vitiating grounds such as fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, or false particulars. The Court also indicated that any factual challenge to the determination could be worked out before the High Court, and any future Parliamentary forum, if created, would also remain available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order made under section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on acceptance of the declaration in form F, is conclusive for purposes of the Act and immune from reopening on a mere change of opinion. (ii) Whether, in the circumstances of the connected matters, the assessees should be directed to approach the High Court or any newly created forum for resolution of the inter-State and intra-State tax dispute.

Issue (i): Whether an order made under section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on acceptance of the declaration in form F, is conclusive for purposes of the Act and immune from reopening on a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: Section 6-A was construed as creating a legal fiction and a conclusive determination on the jurisdictional fact whether the movement of goods was occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Once the assessing authority, after enquiry, accepts the declaration and records the statutory satisfaction, the result operates for all purposes of the Act. The provision was held to exclude a fresh reappraisal under section 9(2) of the Act or under the State reassessment provisions on a mere change of view. Reopening was indicated to be available only on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, or furnishing false particulars.

Conclusion: The determination under section 6-A(2) is conclusive and cannot be reopened merely because the assessing authority later takes a different view.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances of the connected matters, the assessees should be directed to approach the High Court or any newly created forum for resolution of the inter-State and intra-State tax dispute.

Analysis: The judgment recognised that the proper forum for examining whether the statutory determination was vitiated by fraud or other legally recognised grounds required further factual scrutiny. It therefore declined to finally determine the disputed turnovers in the appeal itself and indicated that the parties could work out their remedies before the High Court. The judgment also kept open recourse to any forum that Parliament might create for resolving such inter-State disputes.

Conclusion: The parties were permitted to approach the High Court, and if a Parliamentary forum is created, to approach that forum.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirmed the finality of a valid section 6-A(2) determination, but left the factual dispute and related challenges to be worked out before the High Court or any competent forum, with the connected matters disposed of by directions.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory determination made after enquiry under section 6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is a conclusive jurisdictional determination for the purposes of the Act and cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion, though it may be questioned on recognised vitiating grounds such as fraud or suppression.

---