Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to second sales exemption on 50% of the disputed turnover when the purchasing dealers were found to be non-existent and their registration had been cancelled before the purchases, and whether the burden under Section 10 could be used to sustain the exemption.
Analysis: The factual findings of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority established that the purchases were made from non-existing dealers whose registration stood cancelled prior to the date of purchase. In such circumstances, the assessee had to establish both that the purchases were genuine and that they were made from dealers whose registration was in force on the relevant date. Section 10 places the burden on the dealer to prove that a turnover is not liable to tax, but that burden does not assist an assessee where the materials show purchases from non-existent dealers and no valid registration on the date of sale. The presumption adopted by the first appellate authority to treat 50% of the turnover as second sale had no supporting material and was contrary to the factual record.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to second sales exemption, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.