Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, where medicines and pharmaceutical preparations were made taxable only at the point of sale by the manufacturer or importer under a notification issued under section 3-A, the burden lay on the dealer to prove local purchase so as to exclude import, or on the department to prove that the goods had been imported.
Analysis: Section 3 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was the charging provision, but section 3-A empowered the State Government to create a single-point levy by notification in respect of specified goods. The notification covering medicines and pharmaceutical preparations excluded such turnover from tax except at the point of sale by the importer or manufacturer. Once the goods were held to fall within that notification, the sale was outside the general charging provision and liability could arise only if the department established that the sale was one by the importer or manufacturer. In that setting, the burden did not rest on the dealer to negative import.
Conclusion: The burden lay on the department to prove that the tincture had been imported by the assessee. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing notification creates a specific exception or single-point levy for identified goods, the revenue must prove the facts bringing the transaction within the taxable exception.