Consignment transfers under CST law prevail where goods remain dealer-owned and Form-F evidence supports branch movement.

The article explains that movement of goods between States is treated as an inter-State sale only where the sale contract occasions that movement; where the goods are sent under a consignment or agency arrangement, Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act applies instead. On the facts discussed, the first appellate authority accepted agreements, Form-F declarations, stock and dispatch records, broker correspondence, and payment patterns to find that the goods remained the dealer's property until sale and that the broker acted only as a liaison. The Tribunal could not disregard those binding factual findings and treat the turnover as an outright inter-State sale merely on inspection materials and statements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed turnover represented consignment sales/branch transfers falling under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or outright inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The turnover was examined against the statutory test of an inter-State sale, namely whether the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned by the contract of sale or was merely incidental to an agency/consignment arrangement. The record showed that the first appellate authority had analysed the agreements, Form-F declarations, stock and dispatch details, broker correspondence, payment pattern, and variations between instructions, dispatches, and realisations, and had found that the goods remained the property of the dealer till sale and that the broker acted only as a liaison. The earlier appellate findings on the nature of the broker's role and the transaction were not challenged and had attained finality. In that backdrop, the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the binding factual findings and in treating the matter as an outright inter-State sale merely on the basis of inspection materials and statements. The legal effect of a valid Form-F declaration and the enquiry under Section 6-A was also considered, and the appellate appreciation of evidence in favour of consignment transfer was accepted.

Conclusion: The disputed transactions were consignment sales and not inter-State sales, and the Tribunal's reversal of the first appellate authority was unsustainable.

---