Form F monthly format is directory where branch transfer proof is otherwise established under the sales tax rules.

Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 was treated as directory on the point that a single Form F need not be confined to one calendar month's transactions. Read with Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the provision requires the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was by branch transfer or stock transfer, and not by sale. The Court noted that the first proviso is procedural and that the second proviso permits supporting particulars through annexures to Form F. The substantive requirement is proof of transfer, not strict adherence to form, so non-compliance with the monthly format does not by itself defeat the exemption claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 requires a single Form F to cover only one calendar month's transactions and whether the Tribunal was justified in denying the exemption claim on that basis.

Analysis: Rule 12(5) was read with Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which places the burden on the dealer to establish that inter-State movement of goods was by way of branch transfer or stock transfer and not sale. The Court held that the requirement of one Form F for one calendar month is directory in nature. The first proviso is a procedural stipulation, while the second proviso shows that supporting particulars may be furnished through annexures attached to Form F. The substance of the declaration is the proof of transfer, not the mechanical form of presentation. The Court therefore followed the earlier view that non-compliance with the monthly form format does not by itself defeat the claim if the substantive requirements are met.

Conclusion: Rule 12(5) does not impose an inflexible substantive bar requiring each Form F to be confined to a single calendar month, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

---