Consignment sale claims require transaction-wise proof; blanket inference of inter-State sale without proper enquiry is unsustainable.

A dealer claiming consignment sales must prove, transaction by transaction, that the movement of goods was otherwise than pursuant to a sale and must satisfy the statutory record requirements under Rule 4(3-A). An inter-State sale can be inferred only where the sale and movement of goods form an integral part of the same transaction with a clear link between the contract and movement. A blanket treatment of the entire turnover as inter-State sales based on selected slips, pattials and covering letters, without individual enquiry, is unsustainable. The matter therefore required fresh examination on a transaction-wise basis with an opportunity for the assessee to establish the nature of each sale.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the assessment treating the disputed turnover as inter-State sales and in upholding the penalty without examining each transaction individually and without proper enquiry into the claim of consignment sales.

Analysis: The claim of consignment sale under the sales tax law required the dealer to substantiate that the movement of goods was otherwise than by reason of sale, and the statutory records under Rule 4(3-A) had to be examined in that context. The controlling principle is that an inter-State sale arises only where the sale and movement of goods are integral parts of the same transaction and there is a conceivable link between the contract of sale and the movement of goods. The assessment order proceeded on selected instances and inferences from slips, pattials and covering letters, but the record did not show that the assessing authority examined the individual transactions or conducted a transaction-wise enquiry before treating the entire turnover as inter-State sales. The Tribunal, though final on facts, did not test the matter against the governing principles laid down by the Supreme Court and therefore its restoration of the assessment could not stand.

Conclusion: The matter required fresh consideration by the assessing authority on a transaction-wise basis, and the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to establish the nature of each transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer's claim that turnover represents consignment sales must be decided transaction-wise on the basis of proper enquiry and the statutory burden of proof, and a blanket inference of inter-State sale from selected materials is unsustainable.

---