https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780078 Goods purchased and invoiced in Assam, with the Uttar Pradesh unit shown as consignee, were treated as a completed intra-State sale followed by movement to the dealer's own branch, not as an inter-State sale effected by transfer of documents of title during transit. On that basis, the movement was characterised as a stock transfer. Because Section 6(2) applies only to a qualifying subsequent sale during movement supported by the prescribed declarations, the furnished Form C and Form E-I could not secure exemption; Form F was identified as the appropriate form in the circumstances. The exemption claim therefore failed. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780078 Goods purchased and invoiced in Assam, with the Uttar Pradesh unit shown as consignee, were treated as a completed intra-State sale followed by movement to the dealer's own branch, not as an inter-State sale effected by transfer of documents of title during transit. On that basis, the movement was characterised as a stock transfer. Because Section 6(2) applies only to a qualifying subsequent sale during movement supported by the prescribed declarations, the furnished Form C and Form E-I could not secure exemption; Form F was identified as the appropriate form in the circumstances. The exemption claim therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780078