https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163757 Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer must prove that the movement of goods was by way of consignment transfer and not inter-State sale, but Form F was not the only permissible mode of proof for the relevant period. The claim may be accepted or rejected on the totality of reliable evidence, including inter-State verification reports, though bare denials, cryptic reports, or unverified material are insufficient by themselves. Penalty under the State provision, as applied through section 9(2) of the CST Act, is justified where bogus documents are used to support a tax exemption claim, but it must be confined to the turnover ultimately sustained as disallowed. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163757 Under section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, a dealer must prove that the movement of goods was by way of consignment transfer and not inter-State sale, but Form F was not the only permissible mode of proof for the relevant period. The claim may be accepted or rejected on the totality of reliable evidence, including inter-State verification reports, though bare denials, cryptic reports, or unverified material are insufficient by themselves. Penalty under the State provision, as applied through section 9(2) of the CST Act, is justified where bogus documents are used to support a tax exemption claim, but it must be confined to the turnover ultimately sustained as disallowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163757