Branch transfer camouflage treated as inter-State sale, with penalty upheld for false return and concealment.

Documentary evidence showing direct dispatch of goods to purchasers outside Karnataka, including freight letters and inspection records, established that the claimed branch transfer was only a camouflage for inter-State sales. On that factual finding, the turnover was liable to Central sales tax. The authorities also found that the return and form F declarations were incorrect because the transactions were deliberately portrayed as stock transfers to suppress the true nature of the sales. That concealment justified penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with the Central Sales Tax Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the turnover claimed as stock transfer to the branch office was in substance inter-State sales liable to Central sales tax. (ii) Whether penalty was validly imposed for furnishing an incorrect return and suppressing the true nature of the transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the turnover claimed as stock transfer to the branch office was in substance inter-State sales liable to Central sales tax.

Analysis: The documents seized during inspection, including freight letters, showed that the goods were dispatched directly to ultimate purchasers in Tamil Nadu, with details of the purchaser, vehicle number, sale bill number, freight amount, and payment particulars. The form F declarations and the description of the movement as branch transfer did not reflect the real nature of the transactions. On the evidence recorded by the fact-finding authorities, the claimed stock transfer was only a camouflage for direct sales from Karnataka to buyers outside the State.

Conclusion: The disputed turnover was correctly treated as inter-State sales and made liable to Central sales tax.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was validly imposed for furnishing an incorrect return and suppressing the true nature of the transactions.

Analysis: The return and supporting form F material were found to be incorrect because the goods were in fact sold directly to outside dealers and the transactions were deliberately presented as stock transfers. The authorities recorded a finding that the assessee intended to evade tax and that the return was incomplete and false. In that situation, the levy of penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, read with the Central Sales Tax Act, was justified.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed and the assessee was not entitled to relief on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the concurrent findings that the transactions were inter-State sales and that the assessee had furnished an incorrect return were upheld, leaving no ground for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary evidence shows that goods moved directly to outside-State purchasers, a claimed branch transfer can be treated as an inter-State sale, and an incorrect or false return based on such concealment can attract penalty.

---