1976 (2) TMI 170 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Tax liability on inter-State sale turnover of gingerly seeds, interpretation of sales tax collection from invoices, burden of proof for tax exemption.

Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard two revisions concerning the tax liability on inter-State sale turnover of gingerly seeds. The dispute involved two different assessees and assessment years, but due to the identical question, the Appellate Tribunal decided both appeals together. The petitioners contended that mentioning "inclusive of sales tax" in invoices does not establish tax collection liability. The assessing authority calculated turnover inclusive of tax and granted exemption by applying the formula in the Central Sales Tax Rules. The main issue was whether the petitioners collected tax on inter-State sales, determining their liability to pay sales tax or qualify for exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act.

The petitioners' counsel argued, citing Mysore High Court decisions, that invoices alone do not prove tax collection; account books must separately show sales tax entries. However, the High Court disagreed, stating the burden of proof for tax exemption lies with the assessee. The invoices clearly indicated collection of amounts mentioned as "inclusive of sales tax." The petitioners' claim that the wording was to accommodate non-resident dealers seeking to avoid tax was found unconvincing. The absence of separate sales tax accounts and oral agreements further weakened the petitioners' argument.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revisions, upholding the tax liability on the inter-State sale turnover of gingerly seeds. The petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for tax exemption. The court ordered the petitions to be dismissed with costs and advocate's fees.