Stock transfer burden under CST Act requires supporting records; form F alone does not bar scrutiny of the dealer's claim.

Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that movement of goods was otherwise than by way of sale, and form F declarations do not end the enquiry because the assessing authority may test the truth and correctness of the particulars. Where the dealer fails to produce books of account or other supporting material despite opportunities, the claim of stock transfer may be rejected and the turnover treated as inter-State sale liable under the CST Act. The text also notes that expiry of the record-retention period under rule 26(10) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 does not assist a dealer while proceedings remain pending.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had discharged the burden under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to establish that the movement of cotton yarn to its Goa branch was a stock transfer and not an inter-State sale, and whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order and restoring the assessment.

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 otherwise than by way of sale. Production of form F declarations is relevant, but it does not foreclose further enquiry by the assessing authority under section 6-A(2), and the dealer must satisfy the authority about the truth and correctness of the particulars. In the present case, despite repeated opportunities, the assessee did not produce books of account or other material to substantiate the claimed branch transfer. The authorities were therefore entitled to reject the claim of stock transfer and treat the turnover as liable under the CST Act. The Court also held that the assessee could not rely on expiry of the retention period under rule 26(10) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, because the proceedings were still pending and a prudent dealer was expected to preserve the records until completion of all proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving stock transfer, and the revisional order was fully upheld.

---