Section 6-A burden on dealer to prove non-sale movement; warranty replacement claim failed on facts.

Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving that movement of goods was otherwise than by sale by furnishing the prescribed declaration and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce valid material to substantiate its claim that the goods were moved only as warranty replacements, and on that factual basis treated the movement as a sale. The challenge was rejected because the finding turned on appreciation of evidence and raised no question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that warranty replacements were not taxable and that, in the absence of the prescribed declaration and supporting material, the movement of goods was liable to be treated as a sale.

Analysis: The finding of the Tribunal was based on appreciation of evidence and on the dealer's failure to produce valid material in support of the claim. Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the burden lies on the dealer to prove that movement of goods was occasioned otherwise than by sale, and if the required declaration is not furnished, the movement is deemed to be a sale for the purposes of the Act. The contention that the transaction was only a warranty replacement was rejected on facts, and the challenge to that finding was held to raise no question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was upheld and the petition was dismissed against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dealer fails to discharge the statutory burden under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by producing the prescribed declaration and supporting evidence, the movement of goods is deemed to be a sale and the finding is one of fact not open to interference as a question of law.

---