9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore the same is not taxable has been challenged before us. The case of the assessee as regards the said disputed turnover is that all his sellers were registered dealers in the State and therefore their sales alone are taxable and not the sales of the assessee of the same goods, which amounts to second sales in the State. It has not been disputed by the revenue that the sellers of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent seller is only to point out that there has been an earlier sale in the State and that the onus is not on the assessee to show that the first sale has in fact suffered tax. Though the said decision has been challenged before us, we are not in a position to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as it is consistent with the view uniformly taken by this Court on the said issue. Whenever the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court held as follows: "To claim the benefit of tax on the ground that the sales effected by the assessees are second sales, the assessees need not show that their sellers have in fact paid tax. It is enough for them to show that the earlier sales are taxable sales and that the tax is really payable by their sellers." 3.. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Chamundeswari [1983] 52 STC 124 this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier in the State, then it is for the authorities to proceed to levy that transaction of first sale, and the onus cannot be thrown on the assessee to show that the first sale has suffered tax. The onus on the subsequent seller is only to point out that there has been a first sale and the onus is not on him to show that the first sale has, in fact, suffered tax. This is the view this Court has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
