9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... araman for Ms.Lakshmi Sriram, the learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 3.This Tax Case Appeal was admitted on 03.06.2015 on the following Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Joint Commissioner is right in law in exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 37 of the Act in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority?" 4.The respondent/Joint Commissioner issued show-cause notice dated 10.11.1997, wherein he proposed to set aside the order passed by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore, dated 14.11.1994 and restored the order of assessment dated 13.06.1994 under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd all the invoices were raised in favour of the appellant were in the month of March, 1990 the goods passed through Ottanchatram check post and the invoices contained the check post. The appellant made payments through banking channels as well as by issuance of cheques and the appellant was in possession of receipts issued by the selling dealer and therefore, the fact that the selling dealer was carrying on business during the year 1989-90 and had sold goods to the appellant and also received the value of the goods stood established. 7.Further the Appellate Assistant Commissioner averred that the finding of the Assessing Officer stating that the invoice did not contain serial number in the movement register of the check post and the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who claimed exemption as a second seller of product, taxable at the first point of sale, within the State, two tests which are applicable are namely (1) that the first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within the State and (2) that mere nonpayment of tax by the first seller within the State does not shift liability to pay tax on the second seller. 10.In the case on hand, the documents namely, the validity of the registration certificate is upto 31.03.1990 is not disputed by the Department. The payment made through Banking channels have been found to be correct. Therefore, the petitioner has discharged the onus cast upon them to prove that the first seller is real and identifiable person. By merely relying upon the Village Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
