K. A. SWAMI, C.J.

All these writ appeals are preferred against the common order dated 13, 1994 [Reported as Sri Ganesan Traders v. Union of India, passed by the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. Learned single Judge has disposed of all the writ petitions in the following terms :

"48. In view of the discussions as above, the following positions emerge :

(1) Rule 4(3A) of the Tamil Nadu Rules, being a machinery provision, is only directory in nature; but not mandatory.

(2) There is no conflict, repugnancy or inconsistency between the earlier pre-existing rule 4(3A) of the Tamil Nadu Rules and the subsequent enactment of the provisions, in the shape of section6A of the Central Act and rule 12(5) framed thereunder prescribing a declaration in form 'F' and to put it otherwise, rule 4(3A) must have to be construed as aiding, supplementing and supplanting the methodology of burden of proof contemplated under section 6A and in that view of the matter, it could not be stated to have been 'impliedly repealed'.

(3) The burden of proof that movement of goods is only by way branch transfer and not by way of inter-State sale is always upon the assessee-dealer and it never