https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325201 Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving that movement of goods was otherwise than by sale by furnishing the prescribed declaration and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce valid material to substantiate its claim that the goods were moved only as warranty replacements, and on that factual basis treated the movement as a sale. The challenge was rejected because the finding turned on appreciation of evidence and raised no question of law. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325201 Under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the dealer bears the burden of proving that movement of goods was otherwise than by sale by furnishing the prescribed declaration and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce valid material to substantiate its claim that the goods were moved only as warranty replacements, and on that factual basis treated the movement as a sale. The challenge was rejected because the finding turned on appreciation of evidence and raised no question of law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325201