Analysis of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

An Analysis of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: Burden of Proof, Form F, and the Conclusive Presumption

Introduction

Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "CST Act" or "the Act") is a pivotal provision that addresses the burden of proof in cases where a dealer claims that the movement of goods from one State to another is occasioned otherwise than by way of sale. Typically, such claims pertain to stock transfers or branch transfers, which are not liable to tax under the CST Act, as opposed to inter-State sales which are taxable under Section 6 of the Act.[10, 11] This provision, introduced by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1972, with effect from April 1, 1973,[17] aims to provide a mechanism for substantiating such claims, primarily through the submission of a declaration in Form F. The interpretation and application of Section 6A, particularly the nature of the presumption it creates, have been the subject of significant judicial deliberation, culminating in the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State Of T.N And Another (2004).[1] This article seeks to critically analyze Section 6A, examining its legislative intent, operational mechanics, the evolution of its judicial interpretation focusing on the conclusive presumption doctrine, and its practical implications for dealers and revenue authorities in India.

Legislative Genesis and Objective of Section 6A

The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, levies tax on sales effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 6 of the Act is the charging section that imposes this liability.[7, 9] However, the movement of goods from one state to another does not always constitute a sale. A dealer may transfer goods to their own branches, agents, or principals in other states without an underlying sale transaction. Such transfers, commonly known as stock transfers or consignment sales (not in the sense of a sale but a transfer to an agent for sale), are not exigible to Central Sales Tax.

Prior to the insertion of Section 6A, disputes frequently arose regarding the true nature of such inter-State movements of goods, with revenue authorities often contending that these were disguised inter-State sales. To address this, and to bring expediency in determining such disputes, Parliament introduced Section 6A.[11] The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment highlighted the need for a clear procedural framework. Section 6A was thus designed to stipulate the burden of proof and the manner of its discharge by the dealer.[11, 17] The core objective was to enable a dealer to prove that a particular movement of goods was not a sale by furnishing a prescribed declaration form (Form F) from the recipient place of business, agent, or principal.

Operational Framework of Section 6A: The Declaration in Form F

Section 6A(1) of the CST Act places the burden of proof squarely on the dealer who claims that the movement of goods to another State was otherwise than by way of sale. To discharge this burden, the dealer is required to furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may for sufficient cause permit, a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, to whom the goods are so sent.[11] This declaration is prescribed in Form F under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957.

Section 6A(2) provides that if the assessing authority is satisfied after making such inquiry as he may deem necessary that the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by the dealer under sub-section (1) are true, he may, at the time of, or at any time before, the assessment of the tax payable by the dealer under this Act, make an order to that effect. If the assessing authority is so satisfied, the movement of goods to which the declaration relates shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act to have been occasioned otherwise than as a result of sale. Conversely, if the dealer fails to furnish such a declaration, then the movement of goods shall be deemed for all purposes of the Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale.[23]

The Doctrine of Conclusive Presumption: The Landmark Dictum in Ashok Leyland

The Ashok Leyland (2004) Pronouncement

The most significant judicial interpretation of Section 6A came in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State Of T.N And Another (2004).[1] The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, held that Section 6A creates a conclusive presumption once the assessing authority accepts the dealer's declaration in Form F after due inquiry. The Court observed that once an order is made under Section 6A(2) accepting the claim, it forms part of the assessment order and cannot be reopened by state authorities purporting to reclassify the transaction as an inter-State sale, except on specific grounds like fraud or misrepresentation.[1]

The Court overruled its earlier view in Ashok Leyland (1997) which had suggested that Section 6A does not create a conclusive presumption. The 2004 judgment emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 6A, especially after its amendment, was to provide a final determination regarding the nature of such transactions at the earliest possible stage to bring expediency and reduce litigation.[1, 11]

Legal Fictions and Conclusive Presumptions

The Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland (2004)[1] extensively discussed the nature of legal fictions and conclusive presumptions. It relied on precedents such as Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India (1962), which clarified that conclusive presumptions are part of procedural law, not substantive law, and that legal fictions created by statutes must be given their full effect.[1] The Court reasoned that by accepting Form F, the assessing authority effectively determines the transaction's nature as a non-sale, rendering this determination conclusive. The absence of a specific appellate mechanism against an order under Section 6A(2) was also seen as reinforcing its conclusive nature.[1]

Implications for Reassessment

The conclusive nature of an order under Section 6A(2) significantly limits the power of reassessment. While the Ashok Leyland (2004) judgment indicated that reopening could be permissible on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation,[1] it generally bars reassessment based on a mere change of opinion or a re-appreciation of the same facts. This principle aligns with the broader legal position that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion, as affirmed in cases like M/S Ambika Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P And Ors. (2007), although in a different context.[4] The finality attached to Section 6A orders promotes certainty in tax administration.

Judicial Scrutiny and Application of Section 6A

Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Requirements

It is well-established that the initial burden of proof under Section 6A rests on the assessee to demonstrate that the inter-State movement of goods is not a sale.[12] This burden is primarily discharged by furnishing Form F. However, the assessing authority is empowered to make necessary inquiries to satisfy itself about the truthfulness of the particulars in the declaration.[11]

In State Of Kerala Revision Petitioner//responent v. Bpl Ltd. (2020), the Kerala High Court addressed a situation where there was a difference in the value shown in Form F declarations and the books of accounts. The Court held that if the assessee justifiably explains the difference (e.g., Form F showing full value while books show provisional value for stock transfer) and the quantity of goods matches, and the genuineness of Form F is not disputed, the claim for exemption can be allowed. The Court found no suppression where Form F declared a larger value for the identical quantity consigned.[18]

Genuineness of Form F and Transactional Realities

The satisfaction of the assessing authority is crucial. The mere submission of Form F is not an automatic guarantee of acceptance if surrounding circumstances indicate a sale. For instance, in M/S. THEJO ENGG. SERVICES (P) LTD., CHENNAI. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER (2024), a proposed revision of assessment rejecting a Section 6A claim was based on the ground that goods (rubber sheets and adhesives) were manufactured to the specifications of clients and dispatched directly to client industries, suggesting an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, rather than a stock transfer.[20]

Conversely, in M/S.TECHNI TOOLS v. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE (Madras High Court, 2025), the Madras High Court held that certain factors, such as an agent selling goods at cost value or delivering goods on the same day of receipt by the same vehicle to reduce transport costs, do not by themselves automatically convert a stock transfer into an inter-State sale or indicate a disguise pattern to avoid tax. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that the sale invoice amount of the agent and the net amount received by the assessee are the same cannot be a ground to hold the transactions as inter-State sales.[15]

Interaction with State Sales Tax Rules

State Sales Tax Rules made under the CST Act often prescribe additional procedural requirements. In A. Dhandapani v. State Of Tamil Nadu And Another (1994), the Madras High Court examined the interplay between Section 6A of the CST Act and Rule 4(3A) of the CST (Tamil Nadu) Rules. The Court held that while state rules can supplement the methodology of proof, they cannot be repugnant to the Central Act or impose conditions more onerous than those envisaged by Section 6A and Form F of the Central Rules. Such rules are generally considered directory, not mandatory, if they seek to impose additional documentary evidence beyond what is reasonably required to support the Form F declaration.[17, 22]

Applicability to Specific Transactions (e.g., Job Work, Transit Sales)

The applicability of Section 6A to transactions like job work has been debated. In Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Maharashtra (2016), the Bombay High Court noted trade circulars clarifying the non-requirement of Form F for job work transactions executed on a principal-to-principal basis, as Section 6A was viewed as dealing with transactions between a principal and agent or transfers to one's own place of business.[21] However, the judgment also reiterated the general principle of Section 6A(2) that if a dealer fails to furnish the declaration (where applicable), the movement of goods is deemed a sale.[23]

Regarding sales in transit, the CESTAT in Commissioner Of C. Ex., Chandigarh v. Manan Agarwal (2008) observed that sales made in transit by endorsing documents under Section 6A of the CST Act with E-1 forms are legally permitted transactions.[19] This seems to conflate Section 6A (proof for non-sale movement) with Section 6(2) (exemption for subsequent inter-State sales effected by transfer of documents of title, which requires E-I/E-II forms). Section 6A primarily concerns the initial movement being a non-sale, not subsequent sales.

Distinction from Section 6(2) of the CST Act

It is important to distinguish Section 6A from Section 6(2) of the CST Act. Section 6(2) provides for an exemption from tax for certain subsequent inter-State sales effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another, provided the conditions in the proviso to Section 6(2) are met. These conditions typically involve furnishing declarations in Form E-I or E-II from the selling dealer and Form C from the purchasing registered dealer.[7, 8, 13]

Section 6A, on the other hand, deals with the anterior question of whether the initial movement of goods itself constitutes a sale or is merely a transfer otherwise than by way of sale (e.g., branch transfer). If a movement is established as a non-sale under Section 6A, the question of applying Section 6(2) to that movement does not arise, as Section 6(2) presupposes a prior inter-State sale. The forms and purposes are distinct: Form F for Section 6A to prove a non-sale movement, and Forms E-I/E-II and C for Section 6(2) to claim exemption for a subsequent sale.[16]

Conclusion

Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, serves a critical function in the administration of inter-State sales tax by providing a statutory mechanism for dealers to prove that certain movements of goods are not sales. The Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Leyland (2004)[1] has provided definitive clarity on the provision, establishing that an order passed under Section 6A(2) accepting a Form F declaration after due inquiry creates a conclusive presumption. This significantly curtails the scope for reopening such determinations by state authorities, thereby fostering certainty and reducing litigation, unless specific grounds like fraud or misrepresentation are established.

While the burden of proof lies on the dealer, and the assessing authority is empowered to conduct inquiries, the framework of Section 6A, supported by judicial pronouncements, emphasizes the importance of the Form F declaration. The jurisprudence surrounding Section 6A underscores a balance between facilitating genuine non-sale transactions (like stock transfers) and empowering revenue authorities to scrutinize claims to prevent tax evasion. The principles laid down by the courts continue to guide the application of this provision, ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of expediency and fairness in the complex domain of inter-State trade taxation in India.

References