https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162039 Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that movement of goods was by way of stock transfer and not sale, and the prescribed declaration is the statutory method of establishing that claim. RG 23A register, being an excise record, does not by itself prove inter-State movement under sales tax law. Delivery notes and other materials were also found insufficient to show that the goods were transferred from Kerala to Visakhapatnam after crossing check-posts. The concurrent factual findings were that the dealer failed to discharge the statutory burden, so the claim for exemption was rejected. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:38:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162039 Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 places the burden on the dealer to prove that movement of goods was by way of stock transfer and not sale, and the prescribed declaration is the statutory method of establishing that claim. RG 23A register, being an excise record, does not by itself prove inter-State movement under sales tax law. Delivery notes and other materials were also found insufficient to show that the goods were transferred from Kerala to Visakhapatnam after crossing check-posts. The concurrent factual findings were that the dealer failed to discharge the statutory burden, so the claim for exemption was rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162039