9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee in the present case has produced all the material evidence to satisfy that the transactions were consignment sales. Non-production of the records as required by the assessing officer cannot be a ground to draw adverse inference against the assessee. Appeal dismissed. - W.P. No. 27445 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2009 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND SUNDRESH M.M. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by M.M. SUNDRESH J. The Revenue has filed the writ petition being aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 282 of 1996 dated July 30, 2002 relating to the assessment year 1992-93, by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that the transactions involved are consignmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It was further held that the agents in the other States have paid the local sales tax in the other State. The Tribunal also held that rule 4(3)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules is not mandatory and a mere fact that the assessee has received the amount mentioned in the sale invoice by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are inter-State sales. The Tribunal has also held that the mere fact that the agreement does not contain a clause to the effect about the return of the unsold goods by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are not consignment sales. (iv) Aggrieved against that order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has come up with the present writ petition. We have heard the argument o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are inter-State sales. The assessee in the present case has produced all the material evidence to satisfy that the transactions were consignment sales. Non-production of the records as required by the assessing officer cannot be a ground to draw adverse inference against the assessee. In the judgment reported in [1995] 96 STC 98 in the case of A. Dhandapani v. State of Tamil Nadu , a Division Bench of this court held that the requirements under rule 4(3)(a) are not mandatory, but only directory. The Tribunal held that the assessee with the available records has clearly proved that the transactions are consignment sales from the assessee being the principal to the place of agents and the agents have received the goods in their own place. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
