Form F declarations and despatch records can support consignment transfer; penalty cannot rest on assessment additions alone.

Form F declarations under the Central Sales Tax Act shift the inquiry to whether the particulars are truthful, but the dealer must still show that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale. Agency need not be proved only by a written agreement, and advance payment or an agent's sale of goods does not by itself convert a consignment transfer into an inter-State sale. On the facts, the assessees filed Form F and supporting despatch particulars, the declarations were not found false or defective, and the Revenue produced no material to establish direct inter-State sales. Penalty was also unsustainable because it is attracted only where the law specifically permits it, not merely because an addition is made in assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the turnovers claimed as consignment sales could be treated as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the basis of the Form F declarations and surrounding materials, and whether the levy of penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 6-A places the burden on the dealer to prove that movement of goods from one State to another was otherwise than as a result of sale. Once Form F is furnished, the declaration has to be examined for truthfulness, but the dealer must still establish the genuineness of the particulars. The Court noted that agency need not necessarily be evidenced only by a written document and that advance payment or sale of goods by the agent does not by itself convert the transaction into a sale. It was also noted that inter-State sale requires both a sale and movement of goods occasioned by the contract of sale. On the facts, the assessees had produced Form F and supporting despatch particulars, the declarations were not rejected as defective or false, and the Revenue had not produced material to show that the consignments were direct inter-State sales. As to penalty, the Court relied on the principle that penalty under the relevant provisions is attracted only in the circumstances recognised by law and not merely because an addition is made in assessment.

Conclusion: The turnover was rightly treated as consignment transfer and not as direct inter-State sale, and the assessee's burden under section 6-A stood discharged. The challenge to the penalty also did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, and the Tribunal's orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer furnishes Form F and supporting despatch particulars under section 6-A, the burden shifts only to the extent of verifying the truth of the declaration, and in the absence of a finding that the declaration is false, defective, or rejected for recorded reasons, the movement of goods cannot be treated as an inter-State sale merely on suspicion or surrounding circumstances alone.

---