1991 (3) TMI 381 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court denies exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 1963 for failure to exclusively deal in oil chekku products.

The Madras High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 1963, Revenue, dated April 21, 1960, as the benefit was ... - Issues:1. Entitlement to exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 1963, Revenue, dated April 21, 1960.The judgment by the Madras High Court dealt with the issue of whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided in G.O. Ms. No. 1963, Revenue, dated April 21, 1960. The assessing authority found that the assessee was not exclusively dealing with the products of the country oil chekku, as evidenced by various transactions involving different commodities. The appellate authority concurred with this finding, noting that the assessee had entered into contracts resulting in the supply of iluppai oil from sources other than the country oil chekku. The Tribunal set aside part of the assessment but was found to have erred in granting the exemption to the assessee. The High Court held that the benefit of the exemption was only available to dealers exclusively dealing in the products of the country oil chekku. Since the assessee did not prove exclusive dealing, the exemption was denied. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the appellate authority's order was restored.The judgment emphasized the strict interpretation of the term 'exclusively' in the Government order, highlighting that the benefit of exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 1963, Revenue, dated April 21, 1960, was reserved for dealers dealing solely in the products of the country oil chekku. The assessing authority and the appellate authority correctly inferred from the transactions and inspection records that the assessee was not exclusively dealing with country oil chekku products. Despite owning three country oil chekkus, the assessee's diverse business activities, including the supply of iluppai oil and dealing in various commodities, demonstrated a lack of exclusive dealing. The burden of proof to establish exemption eligibility rested with the assessee, which was not met. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in granting the exemption without proper evidence to support exclusive dealing, leading to the reversal of the Tribunal's decision.The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the strict requirement of exclusive dealing with country oil chekku products to qualify for the exemption under the Government order. The assessing authority's findings, supported by inspection records and business transactions, demonstrated that the assessee's activities extended beyond dealing exclusively in such products. The appellate authority's decision to reject the exemption claim was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing the assessee's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding exclusive dealing. The Tribunal's decision to grant the exemption was deemed erroneous, as it overlooked crucial facts and logical inferences, thereby justifying the High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and reinstate the appellate authority's ruling.