Burden under inter-State transfer claims requires timely supporting evidence; delayed documents may not defeat assessment.

A dealer claiming that inter-State movement of goods was by transfer and not by sale must discharge the statutory burden by producing the prescribed declaration and supporting evidence under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, together with material showing despatch of goods. The record indicated that the necessary supporting documents were not filed with the CST returns and were produced only later during enquiry. On that factual appraisal, the Tribunal held that the burden was not discharged and that no question of law arose for interference, so the assessment was sustained and the exemption or concessional claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer had discharged the burden under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to establish that the movement of goods from one State to another was by way of transfer and not by sale, so as to claim exemption or concessional treatment.

Analysis: Section 6A places the burden on the dealer claiming that the movement of goods was occasioned otherwise than by sale. The dealer is required to furnish the prescribed declaration or other supporting documentary evidence, along with evidence of despatch of goods, and the assessing authority may verify the truth of the particulars. The record showed that the petitioner did not produce the necessary supporting material at the time of filing of the CST returns, and the Tribunal found that the documentary evidence was produced only later during enquiry. The Tribunal's findings were based on factual appraisal of the material and the applicable legal burden, and no question of law warranting interference was made out.

Conclusion: The dealer failed to discharge the statutory burden, and the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment and rejecting the claim.

---