https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792093 Movement of goods from Maharashtra to depots in other States was treated as a stock transfer, not an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding operated only as a framework arrangement and did not fix quantity, price, or specification in advance; purchase orders were placed only at depot level, so appropriation occurred later. Form F also could not be rejected for minor omissions where lorry receipts and other dispatch records independently proved movement under section 6A. The result was that the stock transfer claim was accepted and the related tax demand failed. en-us Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792093 Movement of goods from Maharashtra to depots in other States was treated as a stock transfer, not an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, because the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding operated only as a framework arrangement and did not fix quantity, price, or specification in advance; purchase orders were placed only at depot level, so appropriation occurred later. Form F also could not be rejected for minor omissions where lorry receipts and other dispatch records independently proved movement under section 6A. The result was that the stock transfer claim was accepted and the related tax demand failed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792093