https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359270 A claim that Paclitaxel was moved by stock transfer or research transfer failed because the dealer did not produce reliable proof of dispatch, statutory declarations, or acceptable evidence of non-sale disposal. The record showed inconsistencies in invoices and transport documents, no credible proof of transfer to the Baddi unit, and no satisfactory explanation for the remaining quantity. The burden under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 remained on the dealer to establish transfer otherwise than by sale, and concurrent factual findings supported the view that the entire quantity was taxable as within-State sales. In revisional review, no error of law was found in those findings. en-us Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 06:02:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359270 A claim that Paclitaxel was moved by stock transfer or research transfer failed because the dealer did not produce reliable proof of dispatch, statutory declarations, or acceptable evidence of non-sale disposal. The record showed inconsistencies in invoices and transport documents, no credible proof of transfer to the Baddi unit, and no satisfactory explanation for the remaining quantity. The burden under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 remained on the dealer to establish transfer otherwise than by sale, and concurrent factual findings supported the view that the entire quantity was taxable as within-State sales. In revisional review, no error of law was found in those findings. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359270