9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (4) TMI 421 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
- Liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. - Interpretation of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. - Burden of proof on the assessee to show that transactions were not inter-State sales. - Assessment of transactions as branch transfers or inter-State sales. The judgment by the Allahabad High Court dealt with the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, upholding the taxability of the assessee under the Act. The controversy arose regarding goods claimed by the assessee as branch transfers, which the department contended were inter-State sales. The assessee argued that section 6-A of the Act was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. The court, however, held that the burden of proof lay on the assessee to show that the transactions were not inter-State sales, citing various precedents. The court noted that the provision was enacted to prevent tax evasion through disguised sales transactions. The court analyzed the findings of the Tribunal, which concluded that the goods declared as branch transfers were indeed inter-State sales. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dealer's explanations regarding transfer invoices, MD numbers, and GR numbers. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the facts presented clearly indicated that the alleged branch transfers were, in fact, inter-State sales. The court rejected the contention that the Tribunal's findings were based on no material, as the detailed analysis in the Tribunal's order supported the conclusion that the transactions were inter-State sales. In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision filed by the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the taxability of the transactions as inter-State sales. The court also vacated the interim order and awarded costs to the respondent.
|
