TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revision court could interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the authorities below in the absence of a substantial question of law. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption for penultimate sale in course of export under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 without filing the required return and supporting statutory declaration.
Issue (i): Whether the revision court could interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the authorities below in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction was confined to questions of law. The authorities below had concurrently found that the relevant return for the period in dispute had not been filed, the claimed export-linked transactions were not duly substantiated, and the factual basis for exemption was not established. No perversity, no evidence situation, or misapplication of law warranting interference was shown.
Conclusion: The concurrent findings of fact were not interfered with and the issue was answered against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption for penultimate sale in course of export under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 without filing the required return and supporting statutory declaration.
Analysis: Exemption under Section 5(3) was held to be available only on strict compliance with the statutory conditions. The dealer had not filed the CST return for the relevant period and had failed to furnish the prescribed supporting documents and declaration in the manner required by the rules. The claimed sale was not proved to have an inextricable link with the actual export, and the burden to establish entitlement to exemption was not discharged.
Conclusion: The claim for exemption was rejected and the levy sustained, against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the impugned assessment, demand of tax, interest and penalty rested on concurrent factual findings and the petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory requirements for claiming exemption on penultimate export sale.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim for exemption on penultimate sale in the course of export succeeds only on strict proof of statutory compliance and an inextricable nexus between the local sale and the actual export; concurrent factual findings on such matters are not interfered with in revision absent a substantial question of law.
TaxTMI 
