https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368915 The Tribunal ruled in favor of tax authorities, holding the dealer liable for tax under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act. The judgment clarified that a selling agent acting on behalf of a manufacturer falls within the definition of "manufacturer." The burden of proof rested on the dealer to demonstrate purchases from manufacturers to avoid being treated as a manufacturer for tax purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, rejecting the dealer's defense based on documents found during a survey indicating unrecorded sales. The decision upheld the tax liability based on the dealer's failure to prove the source of goods sold, despite arguments regarding registration dates and previous judgments. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:41:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368915 The Tribunal ruled in favor of tax authorities, holding the dealer liable for tax under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act. The judgment clarified that a selling agent acting on behalf of a manufacturer falls within the definition of "manufacturer." The burden of proof rested on the dealer to demonstrate purchases from manufacturers to avoid being treated as a manufacturer for tax purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, rejecting the dealer's defense based on documents found during a survey indicating unrecorded sales. The decision upheld the tax liability based on the dealer's failure to prove the source of goods sold, despite arguments regarding registration dates and previous judgments. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368915