https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163585 A dealer claiming second-sale exemption under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act had to prove that the goods had already suffered tax and that the disputed sales were not liable to tax. Because 83 sale bills were not entered in the books and no cogent evidence supported the second-sale claim, the burden of proof under the Act was not discharged. Rule 32(13) also required supporting certification for a second-seller claim, which was not shown. On that basis, revisional interference to restore the original penalty was justified, and the reduction of penalty was treated as erroneous. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163585 A dealer claiming second-sale exemption under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act had to prove that the goods had already suffered tax and that the disputed sales were not liable to tax. Because 83 sale bills were not entered in the books and no cogent evidence supported the second-sale claim, the burden of proof under the Act was not discharged. Rule 32(13) also required supporting certification for a second-seller claim, which was not shown. On that basis, revisional interference to restore the original penalty was justified, and the reduction of penalty was treated as erroneous. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163585