Branch transfer under the Central Sales Tax Act: dealer bears the burden of proof, and form F is not the only evidence.

Under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a dealer claiming branch transfer bears the burden of proving that inter-State movement of goods was otherwise than by sale, so the Revenue is not required to prove an inter-State sale merely because goods were dispatched outside the State. The prescribed declaration in form F is an enabling mode of proof, but it is not the only method; the claim may also be established through other relevant and reliable evidence if accepted on inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, where the assessee claims branch transfer under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove inter-State sale in the absence of evidence from the assessee. (ii) Whether branch transfer can be established by evidence other than filing the prescribed declaration in form F.

Issue (i): Whether, where the assessee claims branch transfer under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove inter-State sale in the absence of evidence from the assessee.

Analysis: Section 6-A places the burden on the dealer who claims that movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned otherwise than by reason of sale. The statutory language is clear that the dealer must prove the movement was by transfer to a branch, agent or principal and not by sale. Mere despatch of goods outside the State does not, by itself, require the Revenue to establish inter-State sale once the dealer has raised the branch-transfer claim.

Conclusion: The burden was on the assessee, not on the Revenue, and the Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether branch transfer can be established by evidence other than filing the prescribed declaration in form F.

Analysis: Section 6-A permits the dealer to furnish the prescribed declaration in support of the claim, but it does not state that form F is the only permissible method of proof. The provision operates as an enabling mechanism, and the dealer may discharge the burden through other relevant and reliable evidence if the assessing authority is satisfied on inquiry. The prescribed form is therefore convenient, but not exclusive.

Conclusion: Branch transfer can be proved by evidence other than filing form F, and the answer is in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the burden of proving branch transfer lies on the dealer, while the claim may also be substantiated by evidence other than the prescribed declaration form.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer claiming branch transfer bears the burden of proof, but the statutory declaration form is only an enabling mode of proof and not the sole method of establishing that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale.

---