https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162576 The court upheld the validity of the amended provisions of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which shifted the burden of proof to dealers in cases of transfer of goods claimed not by sale. The court found that the amendment, while making the process more rigorous, does not violate constitutional provisions and aims to prevent revenue pilferage by requiring dealers to substantiate claims of stock transfers. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek alternative legal remedies available concerning the respondents' actions. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:36:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162576 The court upheld the validity of the amended provisions of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which shifted the burden of proof to dealers in cases of transfer of goods claimed not by sale. The court found that the amendment, while making the process more rigorous, does not violate constitutional provisions and aims to prevent revenue pilferage by requiring dealers to substantiate claims of stock transfers. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek alternative legal remedies available concerning the respondents' actions. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162576