Form F declarations spanning more than one month remain valid where branch transfer evidence is otherwise satisfied.

Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act requires a dealer to prove that goods moved by way of branch transfer and not sale, typically through Form F. The Karnataka HC treated Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules as directory, holding that the one-calendar-month limit for a single Form F is a procedural facility rather than a mandatory validity . Accordingly, a Form F covering transfers over more than one month remains valid if it still serves the statutory purpose of proving branch transfer, and the revision petitions failed for want of any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single Form F declaration covering stock transfers made during more than one calendar month is invalid under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and whether the revision petitions raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was by way of branch transfer and not sale, and the prescribed declaration is Form F. Rule 12(5) states that a single declaration may cover transfers effected during a period of one calendar month, but the language is permissive and the rule also permits particulars to be supplied by separate annexures. The Court treated the one-calendar-month stipulation as a procedural facility and not a substantive condition of validity. Relying on the view that the provision is directory, the Court held that Form F declarations covering a longer period do not become invalid merely for exceeding one month, so long as the statutory purpose of proving branch transfer is served.

Conclusion: The rule is directory, not mandatory, and Form F declarations covering more than one calendar month remain valid for the purpose of claiming exemption on branch transfers. The revision petitions disclosed no substantial question of law and were liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's claim to treat the disputed movements as branch transfers was upheld, and the revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language is permissive and the provision serves a procedural evidentiary function, non-compliance with the one-month formality does not invalidate the declaration if the underlying statutory requirement is otherwise satisfied.

---