9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 561 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of higher rate of tax - inter-state sales to which C-forms were filed - burden to prove transfer of goods was not for sale - HELD THAT - As per clause (1) of Section 6A, the burden is on the dealer to prove that the movement of the goods was not because of sale, but was for transfer of such goods by him to any other place of business or to his agent or principal outside the State. The burden so cast on the petitioner to prove that the transactions were effected by it are otherwise, than by way of sale has not been discharged initially at the time of filing of returns. Only when the assessing authority has taken up investigation/enquiry, the petitioner had adduced some documentary evidence. Perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal clearly reflects that the Appellate Tribunal had considered both factual and legal aspects, recorded elaborate reasons while allowing the appeal and also referred to and relied upon various judgments for its conclusion. The Appellate Tribunal had also discussed the purport of Section 6A of CST Act as well as Rule 14(3) of under CST Act (A.P.) Rules, 1957 and finally, confirmed the order of rejection of the assessing authority on the claim of concessional rate of tax in respect of C-forms. The petitioner failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Bench with the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal - the question of law framed by the Court, while admitting the revision, deserves to be decided in the negative.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include challenging the order dated 25.11.2005 passed in T.A. No. 474 of 2004 regarding the levy of higher tax rate on inter-state sales, and penalty proceedings of the assessing officer dated 31.03.2004 for the assessment year 2000-01. T.R.C. NO.90 OF 2005: The petitioner, a registered dealer in refined oils, challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the higher tax rate on direct inter-state sales. The petitioner claimed exemption on consignment sales for the assessment year 2000-01 but was issued a final assessment order demanding additional tax. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority did not consider the evidence submitted, and the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the documents provided. The petitioner argued that the burden of proof was on the dealer to show the transactions were not sales, as per Section 6A of the CST Act. The Appellate Tribunal considered the burden of proof on the dealer under Section 6A of the CST Act and concluded that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of exemption on consignment sales. The Tribunal relied on various judgments and found that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof initially. The Tribunal confirmed the assessing authority's rejection of the claim for a concessional rate of tax on C-forms. The Court, after considering the facts and legal provisions, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order. The Court dismissed the revision, confirming the Appellate Tribunal's decision. T.Rev. C.No. 11 OF 2006: This case challenged the penalty proceedings of the assessing authority dated 31.03.2004, which were consequential to the final assessment order of 11.03.2004. As the earlier revision challenging the final assessment order was dismissed, this revision challenging the penalty proceedings also failed and was consequently dismissed. Both revision cases were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed as well.
|
