Stock transfer claims under inter-State sales law are not conclusive on declaration forms; dealers must prove the movement was not by sale.

In a claim that goods moved from Assam to other States were stock transfers, the dealer bore the burden of proving the movement was otherwise than by reason of sale. Declaration forms filed under the prescribed rules were not conclusive, because the assessing authority could examine their truth and reject them if the transfer was not genuine. On the agreement and connected documents, the authorities found that the tea movement was not a stock transfer but an inter-State sale, and no infirmity was shown in that finding. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the movement of goods from Assam to other States was a stock transfer or an inter-State sale, and whether the filing of declaration forms was conclusive of the nature of the transaction.

Analysis: Under section 6A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the burden lay on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than by reason of sale. The filing of declaration forms under the prescribed rules did not, by itself, discharge that burden conclusively. The assessing authority was entitled under section 6A(2) to enquire into the truth of the particulars stated in the declaration forms and to reject them if the transaction was not genuine stock transfer. The tax authorities examined the agreement and connected documents, found that the movement of tea was not a stock transfer, and treated it as inter-State sale. No infirmity was shown in those findings.

Conclusion: The transaction was rightly assessed as inter-State sale and not as stock transfer; the assessee failed to establish the contrary, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim of stock transfer under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, declaration forms are not conclusive, and the dealer must prove by satisfactory evidence that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale.

---