https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162997 Movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was held to be an inter-State sale under section 3(a) only where the transfer was occasioned by an antecedent contract of sale; the surrounding records, including invoices, challans and direct dispatches to customers, supported a finding that some sales had been dressed up as stock transfers. However, the entire stock-transfer turnover could not be treated as inter-State sales, because the seized material justified tax only to the extent specifically established. Penalty under section 9(2A) read with section 12(3)(b) was invalid, as the assessment was not a best judgment assessment and the later amendment did not apply. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162997 Movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka was held to be an inter-State sale under section 3(a) only where the transfer was occasioned by an antecedent contract of sale; the surrounding records, including invoices, challans and direct dispatches to customers, supported a finding that some sales had been dressed up as stock transfers. However, the entire stock-transfer turnover could not be treated as inter-State sales, because the seized material justified tax only to the extent specifically established. Penalty under section 9(2A) read with section 12(3)(b) was invalid, as the assessment was not a best judgment assessment and the later amendment did not apply. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162997