https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157397 Rule 4(3A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 was treated as a machinery and anti-evasion provision that supplements section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and rule 12(5), without creating a separate charging rule. The dealer remained bound to prove that movement of goods was by branch transfer and not inter-State sale, and form F was only one mode of discharging that burden. The rule was upheld as valid, directory, and not impliedly repealed, because the statutory provisions could operate harmoniously. Non-compliance with rule 4(3A) by itself did not justify treating a claimed branch transfer as an inter-State sale. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157397 Rule 4(3A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 was treated as a machinery and anti-evasion provision that supplements section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and rule 12(5), without creating a separate charging rule. The dealer remained bound to prove that movement of goods was by branch transfer and not inter-State sale, and form F was only one mode of discharging that burden. The rule was upheld as valid, directory, and not impliedly repealed, because the statutory provisions could operate harmoniously. Non-compliance with rule 4(3A) by itself did not justify treating a claimed branch transfer as an inter-State sale. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157397