9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents for its conclusion. The Appellate Tribunal had also discussed the purport of Section 6A of CST Act as well as Rule 14(3) of under CST Act (A.P.) Rules, 1957 and finally, confirmed the order of rejection of the assessing authority on the claim of concessional rate of tax in respect of C-forms. The petitioner failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Bench with the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal - the question of law framed by the Court, while admitting the revision, deserves to be decided in the negative. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY For the Petitioner : Sri A.K. Jaiswal, Learned Counsel For the Respondents. : Sri K. Raji Reddy, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, Dantu Srinivas Spl SC For CT COMMON ORDER: (PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY) We have heard Sri A.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. T.R.C. No. 90 of 2005 is filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2005 passed in T.A. No. 474 of 2004, which arises from final assessment order for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMP No. 152 of 2004 passed conditional order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10.40,000/-. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 6649 of 2005. This Court vide its order dated 29.03.2005 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- as petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of the order. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed impugned order dated 25.11.2005, which is under challenge. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Authority, while passing order dated 11.03.2004 did not consider the reply along with voluminous material submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal without appreciating and considering the voluminous documents filed by the petitioner, had confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority was not right in confirming the order of the assessing authority, who did not follow the principles of natural justice since no reasonable opportunity was af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the dealer. 13. Learned senior standing counsel further contended that since the burden is on the dealer and he has to prove the same either by way of Form-F or any other documentary evidence to show that the transaction is otherwise than by way of sale and also evidence of dispatch of goods. He further contended that in the present case, petitioner did not produce evidence and thus, failed to discharge his burden and on the other hand, the assessing authority had enquired into the matter as well as the material placed by the petitioner and having not satisfied with the same, the assessing authority has rightly passed final assessment order and finally prayed for dismissal of the Revision. CONSIDERATION : 14. On careful consideration of the facts and material placed, this Bench is of the view that the Tribunal has recorded detailed reasons for its findings both on facts and law. 15. It is relevant to extract Section 6A of the CST Act, which reads as under: S.6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so the evidence of despatching of the goods. Clause (2) of Section 6A contemplates that the assessing authority can take up enquiry to ascertain whether the particulars contained in the documentary evidence produced and whether the particulars contained in Form-F filed are correct or not. Therefore, as per clause (1) of Section 6A, the burden is on the dealer to prove that the movement of the goods was not because of sale, but was for transfer of such goods by him to any other place of business or to his agent or principal outside the State. 17. The Appellate Tribunal considered and relied upon the following judgments: i) Assam Company (India) Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, Gowahati and others 107 STC 154; ii) Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion, Alwai v. Goodwill Paint Industries 107 STC 154; iii) CPK Trading Co. V. Addl.Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Maltanchery and another 76 STC 211; iv) Ashok Leyland v. State of Tamilnadu 134 STC 473; v) Jay Industries v. State of A.P. 14 APSTJ 140. 18. The Appellate Tribunal, on due consideration of facts, material, and settled legal position, has come to a conclusion that in terms of clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
