Branch transfer evidence controls: prompt resale by an agent does not by itself make the movement an inter-State sale.

Movement of goods from an assessee's branch or stock to another Union Territory is not treated as an inter-State sale merely because the agent resold the goods soon after receipt. The Court held that prompt resale, advance payment, or absence of certain expenses does not by itself prove a pre-existing contract of sale or displace documentary evidence of branch or consignment transfer. Where the assessee produces Form F and other supporting records showing transfer of goods, the transaction remains a non-taxable branch transfer unless contrary evidence establishes an inter-State sale. The remand direction on verification of Form F was left undisturbed, and the Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the movement of goods from the assessee's branch or stock to another Union Territory was an inter-State sale taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act, or a non-taxable branch or consignment transfer.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the transactions as inter-State sales largely because the goods were sold promptly after receipt by the agent and because advance payment and absence of certain expenses were relied on as indicia against consignment transfer. The Court held that such circumstances, by themselves, do not establish a pre-existing contract of sale or displace documentary proof of branch or stock transfer. Where the assessee had furnished the prescribed Form F and other evidence of movement of goods, mere prompt resale by the agent could not convert the transfer into an inter-State sale. The remand direction relating to verification of Form F forms was also left to stand.

Conclusion: The transactions were not liable to be taxed as inter-State sales merely because the agent sold the goods soon after receipt. The assessee succeeded and the Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.

---