Stock transfer proof under Central Sales Tax law must be credible, or the goods may be treated as taxable sales.

A claim that Paclitaxel was moved by stock transfer or research transfer failed because the dealer did not produce reliable proof of dispatch, statutory declarations, or acceptable evidence of non-sale disposal. The record showed inconsistencies in invoices and transport documents, no credible proof of transfer to the Baddi unit, and no satisfactory explanation for the remaining quantity. The burden under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 remained on the dealer to establish transfer otherwise than by sale, and concurrent factual findings supported the view that the entire quantity was taxable as within-State sales. In revisional review, no error of law was found in those findings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had proved that the entire quantity of Paclitaxel was transferred as stock transfer or research transfer and, consequently, whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the assessment of the entire quantity as evaded sales liable to tax.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings and the revisional record showed that the assessee had not disclosed the manufacture, sale, or alleged stock transfer of Paclitaxel in the original assessment. The assessee's explanation for non-disclosure was rejected because the record showed that it was otherwise familiar with the statutory requirements for proving stock transfer and had in fact disclosed other branch transfers with Form F. The authorities found inconsistencies in the alleged invoices and transport documents, no reliable proof of dispatch of the goods to the Baddi unit, and no acceptable proof of the alleged donation to the research foundation. The assessee also failed to account satisfactorily for the remaining quantity. The finding that the entire quantity was sold within the State was based on concurrent factual findings and on the principle that the dealer bears the burden under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to prove transfer otherwise than by sale.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish stock transfer or any non-sale disposal of the goods, and the Tribunal was in upholding the tax on the entire quantity as evaded sales; the answer to the question of law was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because no error of law was found in the concurrent findings that the entire quantity of Paclitaxel represented taxable sales.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim of stock transfer, the dealer must affirmatively prove dispatch and compliance with the statutory declaration requirement, and concurrent factual findings based on reliable evidence will not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction absent an error of law.

---