Burden of proving stock transfer under sales tax law was not discharged by excise records or delivery notes.

Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that movement of goods was by way of stock transfer and not sale, and the prescribed declaration is the statutory method of establishing that claim. RG 23A register, being an excise record, does not by itself prove inter-State movement under sales tax law. Delivery notes and other materials were also found insufficient to show that the goods were transferred from Kerala to Visakhapatnam after crossing check-posts. The concurrent factual findings were that the dealer failed to discharge the statutory burden, so the claim for exemption was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had discharged the burden under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to prove that the movement of goods was by way of stock transfer and not by way of sale, in the absence of form F declaration and relying upon RG 23A register and delivery notes.

Analysis: Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was occasioned otherwise than by reason of sale. The declaration contemplated under the provision, read with the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, is the statutory method of establishing such claim. The RG 23A register is a document maintained under the Central Excise Rules for excise purposes and does not by itself establish movement of goods from one State to another under the Central Sales Tax law. Likewise, the delivery notes and other materials relied on were found insufficient to prove that the goods were transferred from Kerala to Visakhapatnam after crossing the check-posts. The concurrent factual findings of the authorities below were that the assessee had not produced reliable evidence to discharge the statutory burden.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove stock transfer under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the claim for exemption was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the assessment order disallowing the stock transfer exemption was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale, and documents maintained for excise purposes do not, by themselves, discharge that burden under the sales tax law.

---