Stock transfer versus inter-State sale findings stood in revision; Form F enquiry remained confined by statute.

In tax revision, the Tribunal's factual finding that consignments were sent to depots in other States and later sold there as local sales was left undisturbed, because no substantial question of law arose and the ingredients of inter-State sale under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act were not established. The broader proposition that authorities may freely go behind Form F declarations was not accepted as stated, since section 6A places the burden on the assessee and the scope of enquiry depends on the statutory framework. The revisions were therefore rejected, and the stock transfer treatment remained in place.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed turnovers represented inter-State sales or mere stock transfers, and whether the Tribunal's findings could be disturbed in tax revision; (ii) Whether the authorities could go behind Form F declarations and examine the transactions beyond the statutory form.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed turnovers represented inter-State sales or mere stock transfers, and whether the Tribunal's findings could be disturbed in tax revision.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded factual findings, on appreciation of the material on record, that the consignments were dispatched to depots in other States, received and held there, and later sold as local sales at the destination. It further found that the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded on surmises and had not established the ingredients of inter-State sale under section 3(a) or section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In revision under section 22(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the High Court held that such findings were essentially findings of fact and no question of law arose for consideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's factual conclusion that the transactions were stock transfers, not inter-State sales, was not interfered with and the revision on that aspect failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities could go behind Form F declarations and examine the transactions beyond the statutory form.

Analysis: The Tribunal had stated that revision authorities could make enquiries beyond Form F, relying on the breadth of revisional powers. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's exposition of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and held that, while the burden under section 6A lies on the assessee, the conclusive effect of a proper determination under that provision and the scope of enquiry must be understood in the statutory setting. On the facts of the case, the Tribunal's broader observation about unrestricted enquiry beyond Form F was not accepted as correct law, but that did not assist the revenue because the factual finding remained in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The general proposition that the authorities may go behind Form F was not accepted in the manner stated by the Tribunal, but no interference followed with the dismissal of the revisions.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were rejected because the dispute turned on factual findings that did not give rise to any substantial question of law, and the assessee's claim of stock transfer treatment remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, factual findings that transactions are stock transfers and not inter-State sales cannot be reopened unless a substantial question of law arises, and section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 operates within the statutory burden-of-proof framework for proving such transfers.

---