Consignment sale evidence and writ interference limits confirm that same-day resale does not by itself create an inter-State sale.

A consignment or stock transfer may be accepted where Form F, sale pattials, invoices and related dispatch documents support the movement of goods to an agent's godown, and same-day sale by the agent does not by itself convert the transaction into an inter-State sale. Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving the declaration, but the Revenue must still point to material discrediting the supporting records. Where the appellate authorities have made concurrent factual findings on evidence, writ interference under article 226 is not justified unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the turnover in question represented a consignment sale or an inter-State sale, and whether the writ court should interfere with concurrent factual findings of the authorities below.

Analysis: The assessee supported the claim of consignment sale with form F, sale pattials, invoices, and excise gate pass-cum-consignment sale note. The finding was that the goods were unloaded in the agent's godown and thereafter reloaded and despatched to customers on different dates, and that same-day sale by the agent was not, by itself, sufficient to characterise the transaction as an inter-State sale. The Court also noted that, although the dealer bears the burden under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to prove the truth of the declaration, the Revenue produced no incriminating material to discredit the declaration or the supporting documents. Since the appellate authorities had decided the matter on evidence, interference under article 226 was not warranted unless the findings were perverse or unsupported by materials.

Conclusion: The transaction was held to be a stock transfer and consignment sale, not an inter-State sale, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because the factual findings in favour of the assessee were supported by records and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Same-day sale by an agent does not, without more, establish an inter-State sale when documentary evidence supports a genuine consignment or stock transfer and the factual findings are not perverse.

---