Form F for stock transfer requires proof of the true transaction; refusal stands where the application shows purchase for resale.

Form F under the Central Sales Tax Act applies to stock transfers, not purchases for resale. Because the application itself stated that the form was sought for purchase of goods from outside the State for sale within Tripura, the request did not support a claim of transfer from an outside-State principal and refusal was upheld. The court also clarified that, in genuine stock-transfer cases, the authority must first ascertain the true nature of the transaction and, if it is in fact a transfer otherwise than by sale, issue Form F in accordance with law, taking section 7(3A) into account.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for issuance of form F was liable to be interfered with, and whether an agent seeking form F for transfer of stock from an outside-State principal could be required to satisfy the authority about the true nature of the transaction.

Analysis: Form F is relevant where goods are transferred otherwise than by way of sale and the assessee seeks benefit under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court noted that the petitioner's application itself stated that form F was required for purchase of goods from outside the State for sale within Tripura, which did not support the claim that the request was for stock transfer from a principal. The cited Delhi decision was distinguished on facts. At the same time, the Court accepted that where an agent applies for form F on the footing of transfer from an outside-State principal, the authority should examine whether the request is truly for stock transfer or for purchase for sale, and if it is for stock transfer, form F should be issued in accordance with law, taking note of section 7(3A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue form F was upheld and was not interfered with. The petitioner's writ relief failed, though the authority was directed to scrutinise future applications for form F on the basis of the actual nature of the transaction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not succeed on the facts of the present application, but the Court clarified the proper approach for authorities dealing with requests for form F in stock-transfer cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Form F may be claimed for stock transfer from an outside-State principal, but the authority must first ascertain the real nature of the transaction and may refuse relief where the application itself shows that the request is for purchase and resale rather than stock transfer.

---