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 Upholds Higher Tax Rate for Inter-state Sales, Rejects Exemption Claim for Dealer in Refined Oils</h1> <h3>M/s. Lohiya Industries Versus The State of A.P.</h3> M/s. Lohiya Industries Versus The State of A.P. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in this judgment include challenging the order dated 25.11.2005 passed in T.A. No. 474 of 2004 regarding the levy of higher tax rate on inter-state sales, and penalty proceedings of the assessing officer dated 31.03.2004 for the assessment year 2000-01.T.R.C. NO.90 OF 2005:The petitioner, a registered dealer in refined oils, challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the higher tax rate on direct inter-state sales. The petitioner claimed exemption on consignment sales for the assessment year 2000-01 but was issued a final assessment order demanding additional tax. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority did not consider the evidence submitted, and the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the documents provided. The petitioner argued that the burden of proof was on the dealer to show the transactions were not sales, as per Section 6A of the CST Act.The Appellate Tribunal considered the burden of proof on the dealer under Section 6A of the CST Act and concluded that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of exemption on consignment sales. The Tribunal relied on various judgments and found that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof initially. The Tribunal confirmed the assessing authority's rejection of the claim for a concessional rate of tax on C-forms.The Court, after considering the facts and legal provisions, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order. The Court dismissed the revision, confirming the Appellate Tribunal's decision.T.Rev. C.No. 11 OF 2006:This case challenged the penalty proceedings of the assessing authority dated 31.03.2004, which were consequential to the final assessment order of 11.03.2004. As the earlier revision challenging the final assessment order was dismissed, this revision challenging the penalty proceedings also failed and was consequently dismissed.Both revision cases were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed as well.
TaxTMI 