https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160290 Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer must prove that movement of goods to another State was by way of branch transfer or transfer to an agent. Here, contemporaneous bills, goods found with a salesman during transit, matching dates, an overwritten bill, and unexplained serial-number discrepancies supported the inference that the goods were moved directly to named Delhi purchasers pursuant to orders, not to a genuine branch. The dealer failed to rebut the statutory burden or establish duress in recording the salesman's statement. The transactions were therefore treated as inter-State sales, and the assessment of tax and penalty was restored. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:27:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160290 Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer must prove that movement of goods to another State was by way of branch transfer or transfer to an agent. Here, contemporaneous bills, goods found with a salesman during transit, matching dates, an overwritten bill, and unexplained serial-number discrepancies supported the inference that the goods were moved directly to named Delhi purchasers pursuant to orders, not to a genuine branch. The dealer failed to rebut the statutory burden or establish duress in recording the salesman's statement. The transactions were therefore treated as inter-State sales, and the assessment of tax and penalty was restored. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160290