https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150961 Section 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a machinery and evidentiary provision, not a charging section. The burden on the dealer to prove that declared goods had already suffered tax was upheld as a reasonable device to ensure effective collection and prevent evasion. The Court also found that a remote risk of double taxation in exceptional cases did not invalidate the provision, and that it did not authorise taxation at more than one point contrary to section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the statutory presumption could be rebutted by proof of prior tax liability. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 May 2013 11:55:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150961 Section 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a machinery and evidentiary provision, not a charging section. The burden on the dealer to prove that declared goods had already suffered tax was upheld as a reasonable device to ensure effective collection and prevent evasion. The Court also found that a remote risk of double taxation in exceptional cases did not invalidate the provision, and that it did not authorise taxation at more than one point contrary to section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the statutory presumption could be rebutted by proof of prior tax liability. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 25 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150961