Branch transfer evidence defeated inter-State sale treatment, and reassessment failed as a mere change of opinion.

Form F declarations and supporting transport records substantiated the assessee's branch transfer claim, and the department failed to produce concrete material to treat the movements as inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reassessment could not be sustained where it rested on the same material already examined and amounted to a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal's reliance on the administrative circular regarding the mandatory nature of Rule 4(3-A) in the relevant context was accepted, and the reassessment and revision orders were held unsustainable. The Tribunal's finding that the transactions were branch transfers, not taxable inter-State sales, was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's transactions were branch transfers supported by Form F, whether reassessment could be sustained for alleged non-compliance with Rule 4(3-A) of the Central Sales Tax Rules, and whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside the assessment revisions.

Analysis: The Tribunal's findings showed that the department had not established any discrepancy in the Form F declarations or any concrete material to treat the movements as inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal further found that the goods were moved through agents outside the State, the records supported the branch transfer claim, and the attempted reopening was founded on the same materials already scrutinized, amounting to no more than a change of opinion. The High Court also accepted the Tribunal's reliance on the administrative circular indicating that the requirement under Rule 4(3-A) was mandatory in the relevant context and that the reassessment could not be sustained on the footing adopted by the revenue.

Conclusion: The reassessment and revision orders were not sustainable, and the Tribunal was correct in holding the transactions to be branch transfers rather than taxable inter-State sales.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the assessee's success before the Tribunal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Form F declarations and supporting transport records substantiate a branch transfer claim, an inter-State sale cannot be inferred without concrete evidence of sale-linked movement of goods, and reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion.

---