Form F evidence under CST section 6A is permissive, and tax authorities must test the truth of declarations fairly.

Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer may discharge the burden of proving that inter-State movement of goods was by transfer and not by sale by producing form F or other relevant evidence. Once form F is furnished, the assessing authority's function is to enquire fairly into the truth and reliability of the declaration, not to insist mechanically on every document mentioned in rule 5A. Here, the assessment was rejected solely because certain accompanying documents were not produced, without examining whether the declarations were true. The assessment orders were therefore unsustainable for non-application of mind and were quashed, with the matter remitted for fresh assessment after hearing the dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the dealer's burden to prove movement of goods otherwise than by sale can be discharged by production of F forms and other evidence, and whether the assessing authority is confined to examining the truth of the declarations rather than insisting on the full set of documents prescribed by rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules.

Analysis: Section 6A(1) places the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned by transfer and not by sale. The furnishing of the declaration in form F is only a permissive mode of discharging that burden and is not mandatory; the dealer may also adduce other relevant evidence. Under section 6A(2), once the declaration is produced, the assessing authority must make such enquiry as may be necessary and determine whether the particulars in the declaration are true. The enquiry is therefore directed to the truth or reliability of the declaration, and the authority must act fairly and reasonably while confining itself to relevant materials. In the present case, the assessing authority rejected the claim solely because copies of bills and other documents mentioned in rule 5A were not produced, without addressing the statutory question under section 6A(2) whether the declarations furnished were true. That amounted to a misunderstanding of the statutory scheme and a failure to apply mind to the real issue.

Conclusion: The dealer was not bound to prove the claim only in the manner insisted upon by the assessing authority, and the assessment orders were unsustainable for non-application of mind to section 6A(2).

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded, the assessment orders were quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, production of form F is only one permissible mode of proof, and the assessing authority's duty is limited to a fair enquiry into the truth of the declaration and the relevance of the materials produced.

---