Section 6A CST exemption cannot be withdrawn on the same materials unless false, fraudulent, collusive, or suppressed facts are shown.

A reassessment withdrawing section 6A CST exemption was unsustainable where the original assessment had already accepted the declaration after enquiry into form F and supporting records. Once the declaration was accepted, the statutory legal fiction operated, and the Revenue could not reopen the matter on the same materials merely because it took a different view; disturbance required proof that the declaration was false, fraudulent, collusive, or based on suppression of material facts. A fresh remand for further enquiry was also refused because no legally sufficient ground had been shown to dislodge the accepted declaration.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment withdrawing exemption granted under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act could be sustained when the original assessment had accepted the declaration and supporting records, and whether the request for a fresh remand to enable further enquiry was justified.

Analysis: The original assessment had accepted the assessee's claim after verification of form F and connected records. The reassessment was founded mainly on the alleged absence of a Kerala branch, the consignee's taking delivery within Tamil Nadu, and the description in form XX, but those materials were not tested against the accepted declaration and supporting evidence. Once a declaration under section 6A had been accepted on enquiry, the statutory legal fiction operated, and reassessment could not be based merely on a different view of the same materials unless the declaration was shown to be false, fraudulent, collusive, or based on suppression of material facts. The request for a remand was rejected because the Revenue had already failed to disturb the accepted form F declaration on any legally sufficient ground.

Conclusion: The reassessment withdrawing the exemption was unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded. The request for remand was rejected.

---