Burden in stock transfer claims under sales tax law requires dealer proof that interstate movement was not a sale.

In claims of stock transfer or consignment movement under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the dealer must prove that goods moved to another State otherwise than pursuant to a prior contract of sale. Forms-F and sale patti may support that claim, but where later information indicates the alleged agent did not exist or the Forms-F were not issued to that agent, the dealer must rebut that evidence with credible proof; failing that, the movement may be treated as inter-State sales. An appellate authority may also remand for further enquiry where material issues, including Forms-F, payment source and the alleged contract, were not adequately investigated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings relating to movement of goods from one State to another, the dealer had discharged the burden under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act to prove that the movement was otherwise than in pursuance of a prior contract of sale; (ii) Whether the first appellate authority was justified in remanding the matter for further enquiry under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings relating to movement of goods from one State to another, the dealer had discharged the burden under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act to prove that the movement was otherwise than in pursuance of a prior contract of sale.

Analysis: Section 6-A places the burden on the dealer to establish that the movement of goods to another State was by reason of transfer to an agent or principal and not by reason of sale. The original assessment accepted the dealer's claim mainly on the basis of Forms-F and sale patti. When information later suggested that the Forms-F were not issued to the alleged commission agent and that the agent was not in existence, the dealer did not successfully rebut that information by evidence. On these facts, the claim that the movements were not inter-State sales was not proved.

Conclusion: The dealer failed to discharge the burden under section 6-A, and the movement of goods could be treated as inter-State sales.

Issue (ii): Whether the first appellate authority was justified in remanding the matter for further enquiry under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis: The appellate authority noticed that proper enquiry had not been made regarding the Forms-F, the movement of goods, the source of payment and the alleged contract. Section 9 empowers the appellate authority to remand the case with directions where further enquiry is necessary. The remand was therefore within jurisdiction and could not be termed unjustified.

Conclusion: The remand order was legally sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on merits because the dealer did not establish its claim under section 6-A and the appellate remand was a proper exercise of statutory power.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim of stock transfer or consignment movement under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies on the dealer to prove that the movement was not occasioned by a sale, and an appellate authority may remand for further enquiry where the record shows that material issues were not adequately investigated.

---