Court denies revisionist's claim for concession rate on central sales to M/s Yash Traders for lack of evidence

The Court dismissed the revisionist's claim seeking concession rate on central sales made to M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan for the assessment year 2013-14. The Court found that the revisionist failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claim for concession rate on all sales covered by Form C, as verification from Rajasthan authorities confirmed only one purchase by the dealer. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the dealer to prove their claim for concession rate, which the revisionist did not fulfill. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in granting benefit of Central Sale against Form C No. 4930498 for a specific amount, instead of the amount claimed by the revisionist from M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan, based on a list of 23 sales invoices.

Summary:

Issue 1: Grant of Concession Rate on Central Sale
The revisionist filed for revision against the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 2013-14, seeking concession rate on central sales made to M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan. The revisionist claimed to have made sales against 23 invoices to the purchasing dealer and charged a 2% tax rate based on Form C submitted by the purchasing dealer. The Assessing Authority accepted only one sale to the purchasing dealer and imposed a higher tax rate on the remaining 22 sales. The revisionist contended that as a registered dealer, they were entitled to charge a higher rate but relied on Form C provided by the purchasing dealer for the concession rate. The revisionist argued that they had no control over how the purchasing dealer accounted for the purchases or subsequent use of the goods. The revisionist cited a previous judgment in support of their case.

Issue 2: Burden of Proof for Concession Rate Claim
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal, stating that the revisionist failed to justify their sales before the authorities. The Counsel argued that the revisionist did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for concession rate on all sales covered by Form C. The Counsel emphasized that in regular proceedings, the onus is on the assessee to prove their claim for concession rate, which the revisionist failed to do in this case. The Counsel further highlighted that verification from the corresponding State revealed that only one purchase was verified, leading to the dismissal of the other alleged purchases.

Judgment:
After hearing arguments from both parties, the Court noted that while the revisionist claimed sales against 23 invoices, verification from Rajasthan authorities confirmed only one purchase by the dealer. The Court emphasized that in original proceedings like this, the burden of proof lies with the dealer to substantiate their claim for concession rate beyond doubt. The Court found that the revisionist failed to discharge this burden adequately. Referring to relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that the revisionist did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, leading to the dismissal of the revision. The question of law was answered accordingly, and the revision was dismissed.

---