9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated June 26, 2000 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench 3, Varanasi in Second Appeal No. 96 of 1989 (1984-85). 2.. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that the assessee is the registered dealer and is engaged in the business of sales of coal. During the assessment year 1984-85, it was allotted 12,859 metric tons o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the applicant and had reduced the turnover of coal to Rs. 11,40,000 whereas it had dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The order dated June 26, 1990 in so far as it had fixed the turnover to Rs. 11,40,000 is only under challenge in the present revision. 3. I have heard Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixation of turnover at Rs. 11,40,000 is wholly arbitrary and uncalled for. 5.. On careful examination of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, I find that the learned counsel for the applicant is not correct in submitting that the burden of proving that the applicant had imported coal within the State of U.P. lies upon the Sales Tax Department. Specific provision in that rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt before the authority it is established that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden which was upon it under section 12-A of the Act. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the authorities concerned including Tribunal in holding that the applicant had imported remaining quantity of coal within the State of U.P. 6.. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
