Accepted F forms bar reassessment on mere change of opinion; branch and consignment dispatches need proof of inter-State sale.

Accepted F form declarations under section 6A create a conclusive statutory finding that the movement of goods was otherwise than by way of sale, so reassessment cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion and is confined to exceptional grounds such as fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, or jurisdictional error. Dispatches to branches and consignment agents are not automatically inter-State sales: the evidence must show privity of contract with the out-of-State buyer, and where payment was received after dispatch or the dates were unavailable, the turnover could not be treated as an inter-State sale except for the conceded branch-transfer category where price was received in advance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment of turnover covered by accepted F form declarations could be sustained under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (ii) whether the disputed dispatches to branches and consignment agents were liable to be treated as inter-State sales.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment of turnover covered by accepted F form declarations could be sustained under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Once F form declarations were accepted after inquiry under section 6A, the statutory fiction treated the movement as otherwise than by way of sale and the resulting finding was conclusive for practical purposes. Reassessment on a mere change of opinion was impermissible, and reopening could be justified only on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The record did not establish such a jurisdictional basis for reopening in respect of the turnover supported by accepted declarations.

Conclusion: The reassessment could not be sustained merely because the department later formed a different view; reopening was barred except on limited exceptional grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed dispatches to branches and consignment agents were liable to be treated as inter-State sales.

Analysis: The material did not show that all payments were received before dispatch, and a substantial part of the turnover involved payments received after dispatch or cases where the dates were unavailable. As regards consignments to agents, the existence of an agency relationship negatived any automatic inference of sale to the agent, and inter-State sale required privity of contract with the out-of-State buyer. The evidence was insufficient to treat the entire consignment turnover as direct inter-State sales, though the assessee conceded tax liability for the category where price had been received before dispatch in branch transfer transactions.

Conclusion: Only the branch-transfer turnover covered by advance receipt of price was taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; the remaining disputed turnover was not liable to be treated as inter-State sales.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, with the impugned assessment sustained only to the limited extent of the conceded branch-transfer turnover and the balance relief granted to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of F form declarations under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 creates a conclusive statutory finding that the movement was otherwise than by sale, and such a determination cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion absent fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, suppression, or a jurisdictional error.

---