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>Appellate Court Sets Aside Judgment on Central Sales Tax Rule, Emphasizes Burden of Proof</h1> <h3>CPK. Trading Company Versus Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry and Another</h3> CPK. Trading Company Versus Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry and Another - [1990] 76 STC 211 (Ker) Issues Involved:1. Validity and applicability of Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules.2. Burden of proof u/s 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act.3. Scope of enquiry by the assessing authority u/s 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.Summary:1. Validity and Applicability of Rule 5A:The appellant challenged Rule 5A of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules as ultra vires, unauthorized, and inapplicable to cases governed by section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The learned single Judge upheld the validity of Rule 5A and the assessment orders (exhibits P3 and P4). However, the appellate court refrained from pronouncing on the validity of Rule 5A, deeming it unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal.2. Burden of Proof u/s 6A:Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act places the burden of proof on the dealer to show that the movement of goods was occasioned by transfer and not by sale. The dealer can discharge this burden by furnishing declarations (F forms) along with evidence of dispatch. The court reiterated that furnishing F forms is permissive, not mandatory, and the dealer can also discharge the burden by other means of proof.3. Scope of Enquiry by Assessing Authority u/s 6A(2):The court emphasized that the assessing authority must verify whether the particulars in the F forms are 'true' by conducting an appropriate enquiry. The enquiry should be limited to verifying the truthfulness of the particulars in the F forms. The assessing authority in this case failed to apply his mind to this requirement and instead relied solely on Rule 5A(d) for non-production of certain documents. This was deemed a misapplication of section 6A(2) of the Act.Conclusion:The court found that the assessing authority did not fulfill the requirement of verifying the truthfulness of the particulars in the F forms as mandated by section 6A(2). Consequently, exhibits P3 and P4 were quashed, and the judgment of the learned single judge was set aside. The court directed the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders after giving the dealer sufficient opportunity to present their case.Writ Appeal Allowed.
TaxTMI 