9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yearwise break up of the revisions is that for the assessment year 1973-74i the revision filed by the dealer is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 203 of 1981 while the revision filed by the department is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 64 of 1982. For the assessment year 1974-75 the revision filed by the dealer is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 202 of 1981 while the revision filed by the department is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 62 of 1982. Regarding the assessment year 1975-76, the revision filed by the dealer is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 201 of 1981 while the revision filed by the department is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 63 of 1982. Since all the above six revisions arise out of a consolidated order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable at single point therefore unless having regard to the enhanced turnover so made and confirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, there is positive proof led by the department that the assessee was an importer with regard to those enhanced figure of turnover, the same cannot be taxed under the law. He has relied upon the decision reported in the case of Punjab Tyres v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1983] 52 STC 238 (All); 1982 UPTC 408. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri P.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The relevant portion regarding burden of proof has been stated thus is section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act: "12-A. Burden of proof.-In any assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 974 UPTC 472 has taken the view that in such a situation and in view of section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the burden of proof is on the assessee. In view of the above, I find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the assessee. All the three revisions filed by the assessee, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. As regards the three revisions filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, I find that the argument advanced relate to the sufficiency of evidence or appraisal of evidence for the reduction of turnover. The question regarding sufficiency or adequacy of material or appraisal of evidence cannot be gone into by the High Court in a revision filed under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The three revisions, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
