Branch transfer claims under CST Section 6A fail where contemporaneous documents show direct inter-State sales to named purchasers.

Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer must prove that movement of goods to another State was by way of branch transfer or transfer to an agent. Here, contemporaneous bills, goods found with a salesman during transit, matching dates, an overwritten bill, and unexplained serial-number discrepancies supported the inference that the goods were moved directly to named Delhi purchasers pursuant to orders, not to a genuine branch. The dealer failed to rebut the statutory burden or establish duress in recording the salesman's statement. The transactions were therefore treated as inter-State sales, and the assessment of tax and penalty was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer discharged the burden under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to establish that the movement of goods from Rajasthan to Delhi was by way of branch transfer and not inter-State sale.

Analysis: The burden of proving that goods moved from one State to another on account of transfer to a branch or agent lies on the dealer under section 6A. The presence of bills relating to Delhi purchasers with the salesman during transit, the contemporaneous dates of the bills, the overwritten bill, and the unexplained discrepancies in serial numbers supported the finding that the goods were moved directly to identified purchasers in Delhi pursuant to orders received and billed through the Delhi office. The dealer did not offer a credible explanation to displace the statutory burden or to establish that the transactions were genuine branch transfers. The record also did not support the plea that the salesman's statement was obtained under duress.

Conclusion: The transactions were rightly treated as inter-State sales and the dealer failed to prove that they were branch transfers.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the assessment of tax and penalty was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim of branch transfer under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the statutory burden is on the dealer, and contemporaneous documents showing direct delivery to named purchasers may establish inter-State sale notwithstanding billing through a branch or head office.

---