9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, as far as cutting of trees are concerned and in support of the claim for exemption - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Revision) No.30 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Jayapratap Govt. Advocate (Tax) ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman, J.) The assessee herein is the revision petitioner challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2002-03 raising the following questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the petitioner has not proved with records that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r obtaining permission from the Forest Department, the assessee cut and reused certain shade trees; the sale of which was exempt as agricultural produce. However, the Assessing Officer treated it as timber assessable at 10%. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who pointed out that though the assessee had proved by furnishing the accounts relating to the expenses on seeds purchases, nursery development, employing human labour for maintaining the shade trees, they failed to produce the sale invoices and agreement to show the nature of transaction relating to the sale of shade trees. Thus in the absence of the above details, the First Appellate Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not proved that what was sold was agricultural produce. 9. We find from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that though he was convinced of the expenditure incurred for reusing the trees, there was no material produced to prove that standing trees were cut and sold. 10. Learned counsel pointed out that the trees could be cut and reused only under the order of the Forest Department and that cutting permission were obtained from the Forest Department. The agreement with S. Sivanandam, 16/8, V.H.Road, Pollachi 642 001 for the sale and cutting of the trees could not be produced at the time of hearing as the person in charge had suddenly left the services of the assessee. In the circumstances, the petitioner prayed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
