Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        VAT and Sales Tax

        2009 (8) TMI 1077 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeal Partly Allowed, Excluding Rs. 3,27,13,020 from Taxable Turnover The appeal was partly allowed, excluding a turnover of Rs. 3,27,13,020 from the taxable turnover, in addition to the relief granted by the Tribunal. - ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Appeal Partly Allowed, Excluding Rs. 3,27,13,020 from Taxable Turnover

                              The appeal was partly allowed, excluding a turnover of Rs. 3,27,13,020 from the taxable turnover, in addition to the relief granted by the Tribunal.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Validity of the exclusion of stock transfers from turnover under the CST Act.
                              2. Examination of the genuineness of transactions with consignment agents.
                              3. Assessment of inter-State sales versus local sales.
                              4. Adequacy of documentation (F forms, sale pattis, way bills) to support the appellant's claims.
                              5. Evaluation of the Tribunal's findings and the appellant's burden of proof.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              Issue 1: Validity of the exclusion of stock transfers from turnover under the CST Act.
                              - The appellant claimed exclusion of the value of stocks sent to agents in other States from the turnover computation under the CST Act. The assessing authority partially accepted this claim but disallowed a significant portion based on inquiries into the genuineness of the transactions.

                              Issue 2: Examination of the genuineness of transactions with consignment agents.
                              - Item No. 1: Sri Vinayaga Traders (Rs. 61,21,800)
                              - The Tribunal's rejection was based on the cancellation of the dealer's registration certificate. However, the transactions occurred before the cancellation date, and there was no evidence that the dealer was fictitious. The appeal was allowed for this item.

                              - Item No. 2: Ramakrishna & Co. (Rs. 5,94,320)
                              - The Tribunal's claim that the dealer did not exist was incorrect. The dealer might have shifted business premises, and no proper inquiry was made. The appeal was allowed for this item.

                              - Item No. 3: Goodluck Traders (Rs. 92,21,400)
                              - The Tribunal's conclusion that the agent did not exist was unsupported by the report. However, evidence suggested a possible outright purchase by the agent. The appeal was allowed for Rs. 89,76,600 and dismissed for Rs. 2,44,800.

                              - Item No. 4: Perumal Oil Traders (Rs. 17,15,800)
                              - The Tribunal incorrectly concluded the agent was non-existent. The agent had filed returns, and inquiries were not properly directed. The appeal was allowed for this item.

                              - Item No. 5: Balamurugan Traders (Rs. 46,25,750)
                              - The Tribunal found the agent non-existent, supported by reports and the absence of a valid TNGST number. The documents were manipulated, and the appeal was dismissed for this item.

                              - Item No. 6: Tirumalai Enterprises (Rs. 7,29,600)
                              - The Tribunal's report was incorrect, but the documents were manipulated to cover up inter-State sales. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

                              - Item No. 7: K. Ruksa/Rukshe Trading Co. (Rs. 22,80,850)
                              - The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dealer's name and seals, indicating fabricated documents. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

                              - Item No. 8: Periaswamy Oil Stores (Rs. 38,35,325)
                              - The Tribunal found that the dealer's business was closed, and the F form was manipulated. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

                              Issue 3: Assessment of inter-State sales versus local sales.
                              - Item No. 9: Sivasakthi Traders (Rs. 15,21,255)
                              - The Tribunal incorrectly concluded the agent did not exist. However, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of stock transfer. The appeal was dismissed for this item.

                              - Item No. 10: Aruna Enterprises (Rs. 68,58,140)
                              - The Tribunal's denial was based on an irrelevant ground. The appellant had discharged the burden of proof with the F form. The appeal was allowed for this item.

                              Issue 4: Adequacy of documentation (F forms, sale pattis, way bills) to support the appellant's claims.
                              - Item Nos. 13 and 14: P.K. Kumaraswamy (Rs. 25,23,001), P. Kondaswamy (Rs. 37,85,600)
                              - The Tribunal's inference of non-existence was based on discrepancies in names, registration numbers, and seals. The documents were fabricated. The appeal was dismissed for these items.

                              Issue 5: Evaluation of the Tribunal's findings and the appellant's burden of proof.
                              - Item No. 16: Siddharth Trading Co. (Rs. 11,70,265)
                              - The Tribunal's report was unclear, and the appellant had filed the F form. The assessing authority failed to probe the genuineness. The appeal was allowed for this item.

                              - Item No. 24: Sri Dhana Laxmi Trading Co. (Rs. 1,12,54,805)
                              - The Tribunal denied relief due to the absence of original sale pattis. Relief should have been granted for the turnover supported by sale pattis. The appeal was allowed for Rs. 72,76,100 and dismissed for the balance.

                              Conclusion:
                              The appeal was partly allowed, excluding a turnover of Rs. 3,27,13,020 from the taxable turnover, in addition to the relief granted by the Tribunal.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found