Export-linked tax deduction claims require fair opportunity to prove purchases, supplier identity, and statutory export conditions.

A claim for deduction or exemption on purchases linked to export under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act requires proof of the actual purchases, the supplier's identity, and compliance with the statutory export-link conditions, including prior agreement or order for export and correspondence between purchased and exported goods. Where the dealer was not given a fair opportunity to explain document discrepancies or adduce payment and verification evidence, the claim could not be finally rejected on merits. The revisional decision was therefore unsustainable and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing and reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner discharged the burden under section 13(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 to establish entitlement to deduction or exemption for purchases claimed to be linked with export under section 20(3)(b) of that Act read with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (ii) whether the matter required remand to afford the petitioner an opportunity to prove the actual purchases, identity of the supplier, and the export-linked nature of the transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner discharged the burden under section 13(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 to establish entitlement to deduction or exemption for purchases claimed to be linked with export under section 20(3)(b) of that Act read with section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The materials showed that earlier and later assessment periods had been allowed, but the authorities below relied on discrepancies in the purchase documents and on the alleged non-existence of one supplier. At the same time, the record indicated that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancies or prove the actual transactions through payment evidence and supplier verification. The export-linked claim depended on proof that the purchases were made pursuant to prior agreement or order for export and that the goods purchased were the same goods exported, but the authorities did not fully test these aspects with proper opportunity to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner's claim was not finally rejected on merits, and the issue was held to require fresh examination.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand to afford the petitioner an opportunity to prove the actual purchases, identity of the supplier, and the export-linked nature of the transactions.

Analysis: Since the lower authorities had decided the dispute without giving the petitioner a proper chance to establish payment by account-payee cheque or bank draft, the existence of the supplier, the identification of the exported goods, and the prior agreement or order for export, the interests of complete justice required a rehearing. The revisional order was therefore considered unsustainable in its existing form.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the revisional authority for fresh hearing and reconsideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to adduce the specified evidence.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a remand for fresh adjudication on the export-linked deduction claim, so the dispute was not finally concluded on the substantive tax liability and would be reconsidered by the revisional authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption or deduction claim dependent on proof of export linkage must be tested after giving the dealer a fair opportunity to establish the underlying purchases, supplier identity, and compliance with the statutory conditions; where that opportunity is absent, remand is warranted.

---