2002 (9) TMI 830 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in declining the exemption claimed by the petitioner in respect of stock transfer made to the branch.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was whether the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioner for stock transfer made to the branch. The petitioner argued that they had produced the F form as per Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and therefore, the exemption should not have been disallowed. The petitioner also mentioned that they had provided a declaration in form 27B and a lorry receipt as proof of the stock transfer, although the Tribunal did not address the lorry receipt in detail.

The Government Pleader representing the respondent contended that to grant exemption under section 6-A, proof of stock transfer is essential. Apart from the F form, documents demonstrating the dispatch of goods are also required. The burden of proof to establish stock transfer under section 6-A lies with the dealer claiming it. In the absence of such proof, the authorities can assume that the transfer is under a contract of sale and assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act.

The Court considered the arguments raised by the petitioner, referencing previous decisions, and noted that the F form itself requires proof of dispatch of goods to be produced for claiming exemption under section 6-A. The petitioner, being a registered dealer, should have used a delivery note in form No. 26 for the transport of goods. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner did not produce any documents to prove the transport of goods, and the lorry receipt was not discussed by any authority.

The Court emphasized that proof of crossing goods through the boundary check-post is crucial for granting exemption under section 6-A. Since the petitioner failed to provide evidence of physical transfer of goods, the Tribunal's decision to decline the exemption based solely on the F form was deemed appropriate. The Court held that the mere production of the F form without accompanying proof of dispatch of goods is insufficient to grant exemption under section 6-A.

Considering the time elapsed since the transfer took place, the Court dismissed the petitioner's plea for more time to produce documents, as a similar request made before the Tribunal was rejected. The Court concluded that the Tax revision case lacked merit and upheld the Tribunal's decision to decline the exemption claimed by the petitioner for the stock transfer.