Form-F under CST is not conclusive; dealer must prove its contents, and writ review stays limited to procedural error.

Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, production of Form-F is not conclusive for claiming exemption on transfer otherwise than by sale; the dealer must prove the truth of the particulars in the form, and the enquiry is confined to verifying those particulars. Rule 4(3-A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 was treated as directory, but the assessee still failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Court also held that writ interference under Article 226 is limited to jurisdictional or procedural error, and no such infirmity was shown in the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption on the basis of Form-F and supporting records for transfer of goods otherwise than by way of sale, and whether the Tribunal's order rejecting the claim warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court referred to Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Rule 4(3-A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957, and applied the principle that Rule 4(3-A) is directory. Even so, the dealer who relies on Form-F must establish the truth of the particulars stated therein, and the enquiry under Section 6-A is confined to verifying whether those particulars are true. The Court found that the petitioner had not satisfied the required burden of proof and had not shown any procedural error in the Tribunal's approach. It also held that interference under Article 226 is confined to the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption was not established, and the Tribunal's order did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the assessment-related relief sought by the petitioner was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, production of Form-F is not conclusive by itself; the dealer must prove the truth of its contents, and writ interference is limited to jurisdictional or procedural infirmity.

---