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, before imposing tax, a categorical finding was required that the goods were not locally purchased but were imported from outside U.P., and whether the Tribunal's order could stand in the absence of such a finding.
Analysis: The assessee's case was that the goods were locally purchased and not imported from outside U.P. The Tribunal had drawn an inference against the assessee merely because vouchers were not produced at the time of survey. The Court held that although the assessee bore the burden under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, an adverse finding had still to be recorded on the specific question whether the purchases were not local and were in fact made from outside U.P. Mere failure to produce vouchers, without such a categorical finding, was insufficient to sustain the levy.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order could not be sustained and the revision was allowed to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration on the basis of the evidence on record after recording the necessary finding on the nature of the purchases.
Ratio Decidendi: Where tax liability turns on whether goods were locally purchased or imported from outside the State, an adverse inference is not enough by itself; a specific and categorical finding on that issue is necessary before tax can be imposed.