Section 6-A form F burden rules allow depot transfers to be treated as non-sale movements when false particulars are not shown.

Production of form F under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act shifts the burden to the assessee to show that goods moved to out-of-State depots were transferred otherwise than by sale, but the declaration can be displaced only if the particulars are found false or incorrect after enquiry. On the recorded facts, despatches to depots were made without reference to identified buyers, goods were stored at depots and then sold there, and no factual error in the findings was established; the movement was therefore treated as not occasioned by inter-State sales. The notification under section 8(5) was also held applicable to the transactions, and interest was not sustainable on the statutory setting considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the movement of goods from the factory to the out-of-State depots was occasioned by inter-State contracts of sale or was a transfer of goods otherwise than by sale within the meaning of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 governed the rate of tax and whether interest could be levied on the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the movement of goods from the factory to the out-of-State depots was occasioned by inter-State contracts of sale or was a transfer of goods otherwise than by sale within the meaning of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The assessment turned on the evidentiary effect of form F and the statutory scheme under section 6-A and rule 12(5). Once the assessee furnished form F, the burden lay on it to show that the movement was by transfer and not by sale, but the declaration could be displaced only by a finding that the particulars were false or incorrect after enquiry under section 6-A(2). The recorded facts showed despatches to depots without reference to particular buyers, storage at depots, appropriation and sale from the depots, and no factual error was established in the Board's detailed findings. In these circumstances, the movement was not shown to be pursuant to inter-State sales.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The disputed transactions were held not to be inter-State sales.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 governed the rate of tax and whether interest could be levied on the assessee.

Analysis: The Board separately examined the rival contentions on rate of tax and interest and accepted the assessee's case. It held that the notification dated 31 December 1975 applied to the transactions and that the levy of interest was not sustainable on the facts and statutory setting considered, including section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The assessee succeeded on both the rate of tax and the question of interest.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed because the Board's findings on the nature of the transactions, the applicable tax rate, and interest did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, production of form F shifts the burden and, absent proof that the declaration is false or the despatch is referable to inter-State sale, movement of goods to depots may be treated as transfer otherwise than by sale.

---