https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154346 Section 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a machinery provision that validly placed on the dealer the burden of proving prior taxation or that the dealer was not the first purchaser of declared goods. The provision was read as consistent with the general rule that facts within a party's special knowledge must be proved by that party, and rule 26(9)(a) was held intra vires the rule-making power. Challenges based on legislative competence, article 19(1)(g), article 286, and section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act were rejected because the provision regulated evidentiary burden rather than creating an additional tax levy. The writ petitions failed and the impugned assessments and notices were sustained, subject to the limited time granted for objections in specified cases. en-us Fri, 04 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2013 16:10:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154346 Section 6-A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a machinery provision that validly placed on the dealer the burden of proving prior taxation or that the dealer was not the first purchaser of declared goods. The provision was read as consistent with the general rule that facts within a party's special knowledge must be proved by that party, and rule 26(9)(a) was held intra vires the rule-making power. Challenges based on legislative competence, article 19(1)(g), article 286, and section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act were rejected because the provision regulated evidentiary burden rather than creating an additional tax levy. The writ petitions failed and the impugned assessments and notices were sustained, subject to the limited time granted for objections in specified cases. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 04 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154346