9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 202 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment - change of opinion - burden to prove - Held that - the notice proposing to revise the assessment dated 29.04.2004 is selfish on account of change of opinion as there was a change of the Assessing Officer - the objections given in the instant case is sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof and if the respondent displaces the documents, then the burden is on the respondent to prove the same. The petitioner cannot be called upon to prove the negative - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Assessment under TNGST Act and CST Act for the year 2002-03; Disallowance of exemption claim for rejected cotton; Jurisdiction of the officer to invoke Section 16 of the Act; Proposal to levy penalty; Sufficiency of evidence regarding rejected cotton crossing the checkpost border; Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the TNGST Act and CST Act for the year 2002-03, faced disallowance of exemption claim for rejected cotton due to alleged irregularities. The petitioner submitted objections supported by detailed records, including documents showing the rejected cotton transactions and affidavits from cotton suppliers confirming the return of rejected cotton. Despite these submissions, the respondent passed the impugned order, questioning the proof of rejected cotton crossing the checkpost border. The High Court observed that the notice proposing to revise the assessment seemed to be based on a change of opinion due to a new Assessing Officer. However, the petitioner had provided records to support their claims, and there was no indication that these records were false. The Court held that the burden of proof initially rested on the petitioner, and once objections were submitted, the burden shifted to the respondent to disprove them. The Court found the impugned proceedings to be an afterthought due to the change of opinion by the new Assessing Officer. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The Court emphasized that the impugned order lacked sufficient grounds for disallowing the exemption claim and highlighted the importance of the burden of proof in such cases.
|
