1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court directs assessing authority to verify sales proof for deductions</h1> The High Court remanded the case to the assessing authority with directions to allow the petitioners to submit proof of sales to registered dealers and ... - Issues:Assessment of sales tax disallowing deductions claimed by the assessee under section 5(2)(a)(ii) for sales made to registered dealers.Analysis:The assessing authority disallowed certain sales made to registered dealers for which deductions were claimed by the assessee under section 5(2)(a)(ii). The Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the purchasing dealers had registration certificates or applied for them before purchasing the goods. The petitioners contended that the list of registered dealers was not published as required by law, and it was the duty of the assessing authority to verify registration from departmental records before demanding proof from dealers. They argued that the date of application for registration, not the date of certificate issuance, should be considered for sales to registered dealers. The petitioners presented attested copies of registration certificates to support their claims.The High Court judge considered the arguments and evidence presented by the petitioners. The judge noted that the list of registered dealers was not published, making it unfair to place the burden of proving registration on the assessee. The judge also agreed that the date of application for registration should be considered, especially in cases where delays were caused by the Sales Tax Authorities. Despite the requirement in the Pepsu General Sales Tax Rules for strict compliance with providing proof of registration, the judge emphasized the need for assessing authorities to verify registration from their records rather than solely relying on the assessee for proof. The judge remanded the case to the assessing authority with directions to allow the petitioners to submit proof of sales to registered dealers and consider the date of application for registration in relevant cases.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the fairness of burdening the assessee with proving registration of dealers, especially when the list of registered dealers was not published. It emphasized the importance of considering the date of application for registration and directed the assessing authority to verify registration from departmental records. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair assessment process and proper consideration of relevant factors in determining deductions claimed for sales to registered dealers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
