Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 21 docs - [View All]
Johnson Matthey Chemicals India ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 February, 2016
Johnson Matthey Chemicals India ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 February, 2016
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Abdul Salam on 6 May, 1987
C.P.K. Trading Company vs Additional Sales Tax Officer And ... on 7 June, 1989
Coffee Board vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2008

[Section 6A] [Complete Act]
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Central Government Act
Section 6A(1) in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
(1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may 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, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods 2 [and if the dealer fails to furnish such declaration, then, the movement of such goods shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale].