TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Andhra Pradesh High Court: Burden of proof under Sales Tax Act met by appellant</h1> <h3>Bandamidi Rajaiah & Sons Versus Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, AP, Hyderabad</h3> The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in a case concerning the burden of proof under section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The ... - Issues: Burden of proof under section 7-A of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax ActIn this judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the main issue was whether the appellant-assessee had discharged the burden of proof under section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The specific question was whether the goods, moha seeds, and neem seeds, had already suffered tax at the point of first purchase, thereby making their turnovers not subject to taxation.The Court emphasized that under section 7-A, the burden of proof lies on the dealer to demonstrate that a sale or purchase is either not taxable or subject to a reduced tax rate. The appellant contended that the sales were second sales and hence not liable to tax. However, the Board of Revenue, through its revisionary powers, held that the burden of proof had not been met by the appellant.The appellant had provided detailed information to the assessing authority, including a list of registered dealers from whom the seeds were purchased, dates of purchase, parties' names, addresses, bill numbers, quantities, and amounts. Despite this, the assessing officer did not conduct further verification and rejected the appellant's claim. The Court noted that once the appellant had furnished necessary information to show tax payment at the first point of purchase, it was the assessing authority's duty to verify this information.The Court criticized the Board of Revenue for not making efforts to verify the information provided by the appellant before concluding that the burden of proof had not been discharged. The Court held that the burden had indeed been met by the appellant, and the Board had erred in revising the Assistant Commissioner's order.Consequently, the Court set aside the Board of Revenue's order, reinstated the Assistant Commissioner's order, and allowed the appeal with costs. The appellant's advocate was awarded a fee of Rs. 200.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
