2022 (11) TMI 147 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption of turnover - movement of goods otherwise than by way of sale to a consignment agent of the petitioner - Form-F filed before the second respondent along with sale list - second respondent refused to accept the claim, stating merely on the strength of Form-F and sale list, such inference cannot be made - HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956, and Rule 4 (3-A) of the Central Sale Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1957 is perused. The Division Bench of this Court in A DHANDAPANI VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER 1994 (9) TMI 326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has laid down that the requirement to discharge the burden to prove. The petitioner has not satisfied the requirement, as laid down in the above decision, regarding the discharge of burden to prove - That apart, the scope of revision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined only to the decision making process and not the decision per se . There are no error in the procedure adopted by the first respondent Tribunal while allowing the State's Appeal - this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of movement of goods otherwise than by way of sale to a consignment agent, reliance on Form-F for exemption, interpretation of Rule 4(3-A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules, burden of proof on the petitioner, applicability of previous court decisions, review of the decision-making process by the Tribunal.

Claim of Movement of Goods:
The petitioner claimed movement of goods otherwise than by sale to a consignment agent, supported by Form-F and a sale list. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially allowed the appeal, citing a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, the Tribunal set aside this decision, stating the petitioner failed to provide evidence for the exemption claim, leading to the reversal of the exemption on a turnover amount. The petitioner sought reversal of the Tribunal's decision.

Interpretation of Rule 4(3-A):
The respondent argued that although Rule 4(3-A) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules is considered directory, the petitioner still needed to produce necessary documents to prove the transaction. The respondent contended that the burden of proof was not met by the petitioner as per the test laid down by a Division Bench decision.

Applicability of Previous Court Decisions:
The petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision and a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to support their case. The Division Bench decision highlighted the importance of proving the truth of particulars in Form-F to establish goods movement other than by sale, emphasizing the need for additional evidence beyond Form-F.

Burden of Proof and Decision-Making Process:
The Court analyzed Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956, and Rule 4 (3-A) of the Central Sale Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules,1957. Referring to the Division Bench decision, the Court emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to prove the truth of details in Form-F. The Court found that the petitioner failed to meet this requirement and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court clarified that the scope of revision under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating it lacked merit as the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements set by previous court decisions and failed to prove the truth of particulars in Form-F. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision-making process, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the claim of movement of goods, the interpretation of relevant rules, the burden of proof on the petitioner, the significance of previous court decisions, and the review of the decision-making process by the Tribunal.