Form F proof under Central Sales Tax law is not exclusive; inter-State transfer can be shown by other relevant evidence.

Form F under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held not to be the exclusive mode of proving that despatch of goods to another State was otherwise than by sale, because rule 12(5) and rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules are procedural and cannot override the Act; the dealer could rely on other relevant evidence, so the point was decided against the Revenue. On the separate question of whether turnover already subjected to purchase tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act was again liable under the Central Sales Tax Act, the matter could not be conclusively determined without examining the relevant notification and facts, so fresh reconsideration was required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether production of declaration in form F is mandatory to prove that despatch of goods to another State was otherwise than as a result of sale under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the light of rule 12(5) and rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. (ii) Whether the turnover already subjected to purchase tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year in question, and whether the assessment required reconsideration in the absence of enquiry into the relevant notification.

Issue (i): Whether production of declaration in form F is mandatory to prove that despatch of goods to another State was otherwise than as a result of sale under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the light of rule 12(5) and rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.

Analysis: Section 6-A treats a transfer otherwise than by sale as a matter to be established by the dealer. Form F is an important and convenient mode of proof, but it is not the only mode unless the statute expressly makes it exclusive. The Rules are procedural in character and cannot override the Act. In the absence of any adverse consequence prescribed for non-compliance with the time or mode of furnishing the declaration, the use of the word "shall" in rule 12(5) and rule 12(7) was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The dealer therefore remained entitled to prove the claim by other relevant evidence.

Conclusion: The requirement of furnishing form F was not mandatory, and the finding was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover already subjected to purchase tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year in question, and whether the assessment required reconsideration in the absence of enquiry into the relevant notification.

Analysis: The question could not be finally answered on the material then available because the effect of the notification referred to in the statement of case had to be examined first. The assessment on this aspect had been set aside without the necessary factual enquiry. In those circumstances, the Tribunal's direction for reconsideration could not be sustained as a final determination, and the matter required fresh examination with reference to the notification and the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in a modified form in favour of the Revenue to the extent that fresh consideration was required.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeded only in part. The first question was answered against the Revenue, while the second question was not finally decided on merits and was sent back for fresh consideration to the extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural rule cannot make form F the exclusive mode of proof where the parent Act permits the dealer to establish an inter-State transfer otherwise than by sale through other relevant evidence, and a question affecting tax liability cannot be finally answered without examining the relevant notification and facts.

---