1997 (9) TMI 565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court upholds tax assessment on groundnut kernels in Tamil Nadu, burden of proof not met

The High Court of Madras dismissed the revision petition filed by an assessee-dealer against the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding exemption from tax on inter-State sales of declared goods.2. Burden of proof on the assessee-dealer to establish that tax has been levied and collected on declared goods before claiming exemption.3. Application of G.O. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1963, in relation to inter-State sales of declared goods like groundnut kernels.Detailed Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Madras pertains to a revision filed by an assessee-dealer against an order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 1983-84 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the purchase and sale of groundnut seeds, including inter-State sales. The disputed turnover in inter-State sales was found to be taxable, and the burden was on the assessee to prove that tax had been levied and collected on the goods before claiming exemption under the CST Act.The key issue before the Court was whether the assessee had established that the groundnut kernels purchased locally had suffered tax before the inter-State sales, thus qualifying for exemption under the CST Act. The relevant provisions of the CST Act, particularly Section 8(5) and Section 15, were analyzed. Section 8(5) empowers the State Government to issue notifications for exemption from tax on inter-State sales, subject to specified conditions. Section 15 imposes restrictions and conditions on the tax levied on declared goods within a State.The Court highlighted the significance of G.O. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1963, which outlined conditions for exemption from tax under the CST Act for declared goods sold in inter-State trade. The burden of proving that tax had been levied and collected on declared goods lay with the dealer, and the dealer was precluded from claiming a refund under Section 15(b) if the tax had not been refunded.Ultimately, the Court held that the burden of proof had not been discharged by the assessee-dealer in this case. The sellers from whom the groundnut kernels were purchased were either non-registered or had misused registration certificates, indicating that tax had not been properly levied and collected. Consequently, the assessment of the disputed turnover as taxable under the CST Act for inter-State sales was deemed justified under the law, leading to the dismissal of the tax case revision.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that the assessee had failed to establish that tax had been levied and collected on the declared goods before the inter-State sales, thereby upholding the assessment of the disputed turnover as taxable under the CST Act.