TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim exemption as second sales on the sale of old textile machinery and whether the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities warranted interference in revision.
Analysis: Under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the burden lies on the dealer to establish that the transaction is not liable to tax. In a claim for second sales exemption, the dealer must show that the goods purchased had already suffered tax and that the purchases were from dealers whose registration was in force. The records were found to support the assessee's case that the machinery sold was tax suffered goods and the first appellate authority, after verification of the connected documents, allowed the claim. The Tribunal concurred with that factual assessment. No perversity in the concurrent findings was shown.
Conclusion: The claim for second sales exemption was upheld and the revision was not liable to interference.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the assessee had substantiated the second sales claim on the material on record and the concurrent factual findings disclosed no legal infirmity.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the dealer substantiates that the goods had already suffered tax and the concurrent authorities record a factual finding in favour of second sales exemption, revision will not lie in the absence of perversity.
TaxTMI 
