Inter-State sale versus stock transfer tests applied to disguised dispatches; penalty failed because the assessment was not best judgment.

Movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was held to be an inter-State sale under section 3(a) only where the transfer was occasioned by an antecedent contract of sale; the surrounding records, including invoices, challans and direct dispatches to customers, supported a finding that some sales had been dressed up as stock transfers. However, the entire stock-transfer turnover could not be treated as inter-State sales, because the seized material justified tax only to the extent specifically established. Penalty under section 9(2A) read with section 12(3)(b) was invalid, as the assessment was not a best judgment assessment and the later amendment did not apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods moved from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka were inter-State sales falling within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or genuine stock transfers; (ii) whether penalty could be sustained under section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12(3)(b) of the same Act.

Issue (i): Whether the goods moved from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka were inter-State sales falling within section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or genuine stock transfers.

Analysis: A sale falls within section 3(a) only if the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned by a contract of sale and is the result of an antecedent covenant or incident of the sale. Applying that test, the surrounding records showed that sale invoices were found at the factory, the same person signed the transfer challans and invoices, buyer names were noted on stock transfer challans, and some consignments went directly to customers. These facts supported the inference that direct inter-State sales were dressed up as stock transfers. At the same time, the assessing authority had no basis to treat the entire stock transfers for both years as inter-State sales, because the seized records only established disguised inter-State sales to the extent identified by the inspecting officers.

Conclusion: The finding that part of the transactions were camouflaged inter-State sales was upheld, but the wholesale treatment of the entire stock transfers as inter-State sales was unsustainable. Relief was granted to the assessee to the extent of the excess turnover brought to tax.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be sustained under section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12(3)(b) of the same Act.

Analysis: Penalty under the unamended provision was linked to an assessment made on a best judgment basis, but here the assessment was made on the assessee's books and regular records, with the dispute confined to rejection of the claim for stock-transfer exclusion. That was not a best judgment assessment. The subsequent amendment did not apply to the years in question.

Conclusion: The penalty levy was illegal and was set aside in full.

Final Conclusion: The tax assessments survived only to the extent of the turnover actually supported by the seized material, while the penalty orders failed entirely, leaving the assessee with partial relief on the tax demand and complete relief on penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: To attract section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the movement of goods must be the result of an antecedent contract of sale, and penalty under the unamended section 12(3) cannot be imposed where the assessment is not a best judgment assessment.

---