1990 (11) TMI 389 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over sales tax assessment on transactions involving patan transactions.
2. Interpretation of patan transactions and whether they are sales exigible to tax.
3. Burden of proof regarding delivery of goods in transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute over the sales tax assessment on transactions conducted by the applicant, involving patan transactions. The applicant submitted revised returns claiming deductions on the basis of sales to registered dealers, specifically challenging the treatment of transactions with Bharat Burlop Linkers as sales. The Commercial Tax Officer and subsequent appellate authorities differed in their assessment of these transactions, leading to the filing of various appeals and revisions.

2. The key issue at hand was the interpretation of patan transactions and whether they should be considered as sales exigible to tax. The applicant argued that these transactions were speculative or patan deals, emphasizing the absence of actual delivery of goods and the nature of cross-contracts prevalent in the local market. The State representatives, however, contended that the transactions with Bharat Burlop Linkers involved actual delivery of goods, distinguishing them from other transactions.

3. Another significant aspect was the burden of proof regarding the delivery of goods in these transactions. The applicant raised concerns about the conclusiveness of evidence regarding actual delivery by the mills to the last endorsee, suggesting that the Revenue authorities should have verified this aspect before taxing the transactions. The State representatives, on the other hand, argued that the onus of proving the allowability of claimed benefits rested on the applicant, especially regarding the specifics of the sales contracts within their knowledge.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the assessment of the transactions with Bharat Burlop Linkers as sales exigible to tax, emphasizing the importance of ultimate delivery of goods in determining the taxability of transactions governed by pucca delivery orders. The Tribunal clarified that its role was limited to addressing specific questions of law and not revisiting factual findings already determined by lower authorities. The reference was answered in the affirmative against the applicant, and no costs were awarded.