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>Court orders respondent to provide documents for assessment, emphasizing burden of proof.</h1> <h3>GK. Chemicals Versus State of Tamil Nadu and another</h3> The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the second respondent to provide necessary documents to the petitioner ... - Issues involved: Assessment based on self-assessment, reopening of assessment, burden of proof on dealer, furnishing of documents for assessment.Assessment based on self-assessment: The petitioner was finally assessed for a total and taxable turnover for the year 1999-2000 on self-assessment basis, where an inter-State purchase of chemicals was disclosed. Reopening of assessment: The second respondent reopened the assessment based on a counter check of transactions mentioned in the 'C' form through the inter-State Investigation Cell of Mumbai city, issuing a pre-revision notice. The petitioner requested copies of documents to file a detailed objection, but the second respondent passed an order holding the petitioner purchased chemicals from Mumbai dealers.Burden of proof on dealer: The impugned order placed the burden of proof on the dealer to show that he did not have the transactions with the Mumbai dealer. The court held that such a stand is not sustainable, stating that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to establish the negative.Furnishing of documents for assessment: The court emphasized that it is not enough to furnish purchase details in the pre-revision notice; the second respondent must provide copies of documents forming the basis for reopening the assessment. The court directed the second respondent to provide the petitioner with copies of all relevant documents within two weeks and allow the petitioner to challenge those documents before passing fresh assessment orders.Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the second respondent to provide necessary documents to the petitioner for assessment. The court disposed of the petition with the above direction, without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
