2024 (12) TMI 937 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Writ petition dismissed as assessee failed to prove first sale for gingelly seeds second sale exemption under Section 10

G. Sekar Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Additional), Tindivanam. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuddalore, The Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order denying second sale exemption on gingelly seeds purchase. ... Challenge to orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - second sale exemption on purchase of gingelly seeds - registered dealer or not - HELD THAT:- As per Section 10 of the TNGST Act, the burden of proof for proving any transaction that the dealer is not liable to tax shall lie on the dealer. As such, the burden was always on the dealer to prove the point of first sale. In the instant case, the assessee had not discharged the burden of proof under Section 10 of the TNGST Act by proving the first sale. Further the finding of fact has been arrived at consistently by the authorities that the bills purchased from M/s.Sri Valli Traders cannot be accepted as they are not registered dealer, the bills produced also had been found to be manipulated and there had not been any actual movement of goods. There are no error or illegality in the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Issues:Challenge to orders of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding second sale exemption on purchase of gingelly seeds.Analysis:The petitioner, a dealer in groundnut kernel and gingelly seeds, filed a return for the assessment year 1992-93 claiming second sale exemption on the purchase of gingelly seeds. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the seller was not a registered dealer and no valid document proved the goods' movement. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the assessment orders, citing lack of actual movement of goods and fabricated documents.The petitioner contended that the seller was registered at the time of purchase and produced renewal receipts as proof. The government pleader argued that no evidence of goods movement was submitted, and documents were deemed not genuine. The Tribunal found no seal of any checkpost on bills and no actual goods movement, concluding the bills were obtained later to cover purchases from unregistered dealers.The Tribunal's order highlighted that the registration of the seller was canceled, bills lacked checkpost seals, and no proof of goods movement existed. The burden of proof under Section 10 of the TNGST Act lay with the dealer, and the petitioner failed to establish the first sale. The Tribunal's findings were deemed legal, and the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded.