9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that even though the vendors of the respondent had claimed the impugned sales to the respondent as exempt from tax under rule b(1)(vi) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1952, it was not for the respondent to prove that he had not purchased the said goods by issue of certificates, but the onus was on the department to prove b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to supply it to the outside-State principals and that it had purchased such bullion by giving a certificate under rule 5(1)(vi) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1952, that these goods were meant for resale and that as the assessee had not resold the goods, it had committed an infringement or a breach of the declaration contained in the said certificates and had, therefore, become liable to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplies are utilised by the purchasing dealer for a purpose other than resale, the price of the goods so purchased shall be included in the taxable turnover of the purchasing dealer under section 7. " In support of its contention that the respondent-firm had purchased bullion by giving a certificate that the bullion was required for the purpose of resale the department relied upon the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1947, is in very similar terms to the said rule 5(1)(vi). The Orissa High Court held that the burden lay on an assessee to establish his claim under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the said Act, but when action had to be taken against an assessee under the proviso thereto, the burden lay on the department to show that there was a violation and that there was no burden on an assessee to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
