Stock transfer claims require complete records; matching invoices and transfer memos can show inter-State sales under prior contracts.

A dealer claiming stock transfer had to substantiate the movement of goods with complete books of account and supporting documents, even though section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not applicable for the assessment year. Because the dealer failed to produce full stock transfer memos, depot books, sale invoices, and all purchaser agreements, and the records showed matching agreement numbers and purchaser codes in the transfer memos and invoices, adverse inference was drawn. The movement was therefore treated as inter-State sales made pursuant to prior contracts of sale, and the contrary stock transfer claim was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the movement of goods from the dealer's Modinagar unit to its Delhi depot was by way of stock transfer or constituted inter-State sales in pursuance of prior contracts of sale.

Analysis: The claim of stock transfer was required to be established by the dealer on the basis of complete books of account and supporting documents, even though section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The authorities found that the dealer did not produce the full stock transfer memos, sale invoices, books of account maintained at the Delhi depot, or all agreements with purchasers. The records disclosed matching agreement numbers in the stock transfer memos and the sale invoices issued from the Delhi depot, and some purchaser codes were also mentioned in the transfer memos. These circumstances supported the finding that the goods moved pursuant to prior contracts of sale and that the destination of the goods was known at the time of movement. In the absence of complete documents, adverse inference was rightly drawn.

Conclusion: The claim of stock transfer was not proved and the movement of goods was correctly treated as inter-State sales; the finding was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected on merits, leaving intact the concurrent findings that the transactions were inter-State sales and not stock transfers.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is not applicable, the dealer asserting stock transfer must substantiate the claim with complete records, and failure to do so permits an adverse inference that the movement was in pursuance of prior contracts of sale.

---