Form F validity under stock transfer law depends on lawful procurement and proof of despatch; remand upheld.

For a stock transfer claim under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the dealer must prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale by producing prescribed Form F obtained from the prescribed authority, along with evidence of despatch. Where the department shows that the Forms F were not issued to the declared agents and the dealer fails to establish lawful procurement, the declarations are not valid merely because they were produced. The authorities may examine whether the statutory conditions for stock transfer are satisfied, and the Tribunal's remand for further enquiry was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority and whether Form F declarations relied upon by the dealer were valid declarations under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: For a claim of stock transfer under Section 6A, the dealer must discharge the burden of proving that the movement of goods was otherwise than by sale by furnishing a declaration in the prescribed Form F obtained from the prescribed authority, together with evidence of despatch. The provision, read with the relevant Central Sales Tax Rules, makes the obtaining of Form F from the prescribed authority a crucial requirement. Where the department produces material showing that the Forms F were not issued to the declared agents and the dealer fails to prove that the forms were lawfully obtained, the declarations cannot be treated as valid merely because they were produced by the dealer. The case is materially different from ordinary concessional-rate sales against Form C, and the authorities under Section 6A are entitled to examine whether the statutory conditions for stock transfer are actually met.

Conclusion: The Forms F were held to be invalid declarations under Section 6A, and the Tribunal's order remanding the matter for further enquiry was upheld.

---