2007 (1) TMI 502 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the amended provisions of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the amended provisions of section 6A, which shifted the burden of proof in cases of transfer of goods claimed not by sale. The petitioner argued that the new provision made it more difficult for dealers to prove stock transfers by requiring a form F declaration from the consignee issued by the prescribed authority. The petitioner contended that this amendment could lead to practical difficulties in proving stock transfers, impacting tax liability and violating constitutional provisions.

The court noted that section 6A is an enabling provision allowing dealers to claim stock transfers instead of sales by providing supporting material as prescribed. The court emphasized that the provision's amendment, though making the process more rigorous, does not render it unconstitutional. The provision aims to prevent revenue pilferage by requiring dealers to substantiate claims of stock transfers; failure to do so results in deeming the transaction as a sale, triggering tax liability.

The court highlighted that the provision's fiction serves the Act's objective of taxing inter-State sales. If a dealer fails to prove a stock transfer, treating the transaction as a sale aligns with the Act's purpose. The court rejected the challenge to the provision's validity, emphasizing that the amendment does not alter the provision's nature but enhances the burden of proof for dealers. The court declined to interpret section 6A at this stage, stating that such matters should be addressed through appropriate channels unless brought for examination in a proper manner.

The court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that the petitioner could pursue other legal remedies available concerning the respondents' actions. The court rejected the prayer for a declaration or interpretation of the provision in a specific manner, leaving the petitioner open to explore alternative legal avenues within the framework of the law.