https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154463 A dealer claiming second-sale exemption had to affirmatively prove that the turnover was not liable as a first sale under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Sale bills, way bills and cheque particulars were insufficient because the registration numbers in the documents did not belong to the alleged sellers during the relevant year, and the sellers were not shown to be real or identifiable dealers. The Tribunal's verification-based finding that the consignors were not established was upheld, since the way bills carried the same false particulars and did not cure the evidentiary defect. The exemption claim was therefore disallowed to the extent rejected. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:41:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154463 A dealer claiming second-sale exemption had to affirmatively prove that the turnover was not liable as a first sale under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Sale bills, way bills and cheque particulars were insufficient because the registration numbers in the documents did not belong to the alleged sellers during the relevant year, and the sellers were not shown to be real or identifiable dealers. The Tribunal's verification-based finding that the consignors were not established was upheld, since the way bills carried the same false particulars and did not cure the evidentiary defect. The exemption claim was therefore disallowed to the extent rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154463