Form F declarations protect stock-transfer claims unless proved unreliable; best judgment turnover estimates may stand on unexplained stock discrepancies.

Form F declarations under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 support a stock-transfer claim unless they are shown to be invalid, forged or otherwise unreliable; suspicious survey material alone is insufficient to displace the statutory presumption. On that basis, the stock transfers were not to be treated as inter-State sales and disallowance of Form F was unsustainable. Separately, where survey discrepancies show substantial mismatch between stock records and physical verification, and no satisfactory explanation is produced, rejection of books of account and best judgment estimation of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 may be sustained as factual findings not ordinarily open to revisional interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claimed stock transfers were liable to be treated as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and whether the benefit of Form F was available; (ii) Whether the rejection of the books of account and the best judgment estimation of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the claimed stock transfers were liable to be treated as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and whether the benefit of Form F was available.

Analysis: The transfer claim was supported by Form F declarations and the statutory burden under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act was on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than by way of sale. The authorities relied on the survey material and seized challans, but no finding was recorded that the Form F declarations were incorrect, forged or otherwise legally defective. In the absence of such rejection, the statutory presumption in favour of stock transfer operated.

Conclusion: The stock transfers could not be treated as inter-State sales, and the disallowance of Form F was unsustainable; the revision on the Central Sales Tax Act issue was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the books of account and the best judgment estimation of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 called for interference.

Analysis: The survey disclosed large discrepancies between the stock register and physical verification across numerous items. Apart from one explanation offered for a particular item, no satisfactory explanation or evidence was produced for the remaining discrepancies. The concurrent findings that the accounts were unreliable and that turnover had to be estimated were treated as factual findings not warranting revisional interference.

Conclusion: The rejection of books of account and the estimate of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act were upheld, and the revision on the State Act issue was dismissed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on the Central Sales Tax Act assessment, while the assessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer produces Form F declarations satisfying section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden to disprove stock transfer is not discharged merely by suspicious survey material unless the declarations are shown to be invalid or unreliable; separately, concurrent factual findings rejecting books of account and estimating turnover will not ordinarily be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction absent perversity.

---