Stock transfer exemption requires proof of physical movement, and Form F alone is not enough without supporting transport records.

Exemption for stock transfer under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 depends on the dealer proving that the goods were moved otherwise than by sale. The burden lies on the dealer claiming the benefit, and Form F alone is not sufficient. Supporting evidence of dispatch and physical movement across the State boundary, such as transport documents or border check-post seals, is required. Where no reliable transport records are produced, the claim of stock transfer remains unproved and the exemption may be refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption on stock transfer could be denied when the dealer produced only Form F without reliable proof of dispatch and physical movement of goods across the State boundary.

Analysis: Exemption under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is available only when the dealer proves that the goods were transferred otherwise than by sale. The burden rests on the dealer claiming the benefit. Form F is not sufficient by itself, because it must be accompanied by proof of dispatch and transport of goods. Where no transport document bearing border check-post seals or equivalent evidence of physical movement is produced, the claim of stock transfer remains unproved. The absence of supporting transport records therefore justifies refusal of the exemption.

Conclusion: Mere production of Form F did not establish stock transfer, and the denial of exemption was upheld.

---