The burden of proof is on the dealer to prove the nature of the transactions, and the assessing authority should focus on relevant aspects or facts to evaluate the evidence adduced by the dealer. The assessing authority should not solely rely on specific rules without considering the provisions of the Act.

K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The petitioner in O.P. No. 2659 of 1980 N is the appellant in this writ appeal. The first respondent is the Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry, and the second respondent is the State of Kerala. The appellant is a firm dealing in pepper, ginger, betelnuts, etc. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The appellant/assessee claimed that transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,21,971.91, for the year 1976-77, and transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,05,822.42, for the year 1977-78, are only consignment sales effected through agents and so not exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. They were only despatched to commission agents outside the State. The plea was that those inter-State transactions were only consignment sales. For both these years, the appellant/assessee produced sale pattials and F forms in support of the claim. The assessing authority took the view that the documents prescribed under rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957, were not produced by the appellant and so there was a failure to prove the principal-agent relationship between the appellant and the dealers in other States. The case made out was that copies of bills issued by the agents to the purchasers were not produced, as required by rule 5A(d) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules. It was held that in view of the failure to produced the documents prescribed under rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, the appellant failed to prove the relationship of principal-agent and so the sales by the appellant to the dealers at the other end should be treated as inter-State sales and assessments were completed accordingly. On this basis, exhibits P3 and P4 assessment orders were passed, for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, on 15th February, 1980.

2. The appellant filed O.P. No. 2659 of 1980 and assailed exhibits P3 and P4 on various grounds. Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules was attacked as ultra vires, unauthorised and inapplicable to cases governed by section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. A learned single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 24th February, 1983 [See C.P.K. Trading Company v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1983] 54 STC 222.], upheld exhibits P3 and P4 as legal and valid. The challenge against rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules was also negatived. The petitioner in the O.P. has come up in writ appeal.

3. We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. C. Natarajan as also the Special Government Pleader, Mr. L. G. Potti. In our opinion, the facts of this case are in a narrow compass and the question of law that arises for consideration is simple. We are of the view, that for disposing of this appeal, it is unnecessary to consider the vires of rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules. We refrain from doing so.

4. In order to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the controversy raised in this case, it will be useful to extract section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, sections 13(1), 13(3), and 13(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, rules 12(5) to 12(9) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 and rule 11C of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules.

Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act :

"6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. - (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 a