9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Raveendran For the Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER Heard Mr.B.Raveendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate accepting on behalf of the respondent. 2.The petitioner is an assessee on the books of the Deputy Commissioner, Udamalpet holding a registration certificate under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act), and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) and the accounts of the petitioner for the year 2002-03 were called for and checked by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, and the total taxable turnover was determined at ₹ 6,75,05,985/- and ₹ 86,48,051/- respectively by order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 14. Freight 15. Amount recovered 4.It was submitted that the Assessing Officer who completed the assessment by order dated 22.03.2004 has examined all the documents in detail and allowed the claim for exemption with regard to allocation and the petitioner has not produced records for that the cotton have actually crossed the Chekpost border. The petitioner submitted as follows: 5. We submit that the cotton were taken back by the supplier and he has arranged vehicle to take back the rejected cotton. Hence, we are not having any proof that cotton have actually crossed the checkpost border. Without prejudice to the above we submit that the checkpost authorities will not give any acknowledgment for crossing the checkpost. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Coimbatore Marketing Limited of the Southern India Mills Association etc. That apart, the petitioner also furnished individual affidavits from all the cotton suppliers who vouched that they have taken back the rejected quantity of cotton. 6. These affidavits were tested before the authority and in spite of these records placed before the authority, the respondent has passed the impugned order, while accepting that the records were produced by the petitioner, held that the records produced do not establish that the consignment of rejected cotton actually crossed the chekpost border as pointed out earlier. The assessment was initially completed on 22.03.2004, wherein, the Assessing Officer has observed that the dealers effected pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds are false or frivolous, but the respondent would state that they are not sufficient to prove that the rejected cotton consignment has crossed the Tamil Nadu check post. On pre-revision notice being issued, a dealer submitted his objections and I find that the objections given in the instant case is sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof and if the respondent displaces the documents, then the burden is on the respondent to prove the same. The petitioner cannot be called upon to prove the negative. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings are clear after thought on account of change of opinion by the new Assessing Officer. Thus, for the above reason the impugned order calls for interference. 8. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
