Second sale exemption requires strict proof; unsupported invoices and no real goods movement justified denial of relief.

A dealer claiming second sale exemption under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 must prove entitlement with reliable evidence under Section 10. The article notes that the exemption was denied because the selling concern was not a registered dealer for the relevant period, the bills were unsupported by checkpost evidence, and the materials showed no actual movement of gingelly seeds from Madras to Tindivanam. On those concurrent findings, the documents were treated as manipulated and the assessee failed to prove the first sale, so the assessment was sustained and the writ petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to second sale exemption on the disputed gingelly seed purchases and whether it had discharged the burden of proof under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The claim for exemption was rejected on concurrent findings that the selling concern was not a registered dealer for the relevant period, the bills relied on were not supported by checkpost evidence, and the materials indicated that there was no actual movement of goods from Madras to Tindivanam. On these facts, the authorities found that the documents were manipulated and that the assessee had not proved the first sale so as to establish entitlement to the claimed exemption. The burden under Section 10 rested on the dealer to show that the transaction was not liable to tax, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The claim for second sale exemption failed, and the finding sustaining the assessment was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the concurrent factual findings on non-registration, absence of genuine movement of goods, and failure to prove first sale left no legal infirmity in the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer claims exemption from tax on the basis of first sale or second sale, the statutory burden lies on the dealer to establish the exemption by reliable evidence, and concurrent factual findings that the selling dealer was non-existent or unregistered and that there was no actual movement of goods justify denial of the exemption.

---