2006 (7) TMI 641 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of levy of purchase tax under West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; Burden of proof under section 13(2) of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order of Levy of Purchase Tax: The petitioner, a registered dealer under both the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, contested the order of the West Bengal Commercial Tax Appellate and Revisional Board regarding the levy of purchase tax on industrial leather gloves. The dispute arose from the petitioner's claim for deduction under section 20(3)(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for sales on export. The assessing officer levied purchase tax, which was partially set aside on appeal but upheld under certain clauses. The Revisional Board affirmed the order, leading to the petitioner challenging it on grounds of failure to appreciate relevant documents.

2. Burden of Proof under Section 13(2) of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof under section 13(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. This section places the burden on the dealer to prove that purchases are not liable to tax. The central issue was whether the petitioner had adequately discharged this burden in claiming exemption under section 20(3)(b) for export sales.

3. Decision and Analysis of Evidence: The judgment analyzed the assessment orders and observed discrepancies in the petitioner's claims for exemption. The assessing officer's findings regarding the genuineness of purchase orders and lack of evidence supporting export sales were crucial. The appellate authority and Revisional Board upheld the assessing officer's decision based on insufficient proof of purchases for export purposes. The judgment emphasized the necessity of compliance with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for exemption claims.

4. Judicial Review and Remand: The court found shortcomings in the assessment process, noting that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to adequately prove the transactions. The judgment highlighted the need for proper documentation and verification of export-related purchases. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a rehearing to allow the petitioner to present evidence of genuine transactions and compliance with export agreements.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the burden of proof in tax disputes, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence. The court's decision to remand the case underscored the significance of fair hearings and the opportunity for parties to present their case effectively.