https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127578 Liability to file a return under rule 6(1) depended on proof that the dealer had commenced business after the relevant date and that the estimated turnover for the first twelve months met the prescribed threshold. The prosecution had to establish these ingredients before sustaining conviction under section 15(a), and the accused's failure to prove his own plea did not reduce that burden. On the facts, no evidence showed the requisite condition precedent for rule 6(1) liability, so the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was bound to submit the return and the conviction could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127578 Liability to file a return under rule 6(1) depended on proof that the dealer had commenced business after the relevant date and that the estimated turnover for the first twelve months met the prescribed threshold. The prosecution had to establish these ingredients before sustaining conviction under section 15(a), and the accused's failure to prove his own plea did not reduce that burden. On the facts, no evidence showed the requisite condition precedent for rule 6(1) liability, so the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was bound to submit the return and the conviction could not be sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Aug 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127578