https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405038 Where a dealer produced Form XXA, lorry receipts and other primary records to evidence movement of goods from Chennai to Bangalore, the initial burden under Rule 35A was treated as discharged. The Revenue then had to rebut that evidence by proper verification, including reference to relevant check-post records and scrutiny of the seal on the form. Because the assessment and appellate authorities did not effectively address the documents or verify the competing material, the Revenue failed to disprove the claim. The revision therefore succeeded, and relief was granted on proof of inter-State movement of goods. en-us Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:29:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405038 Where a dealer produced Form XXA, lorry receipts and other primary records to evidence movement of goods from Chennai to Bangalore, the initial burden under Rule 35A was treated as discharged. The Revenue then had to rebut that evidence by proper verification, including reference to relevant check-post records and scrutiny of the seal on the form. Because the assessment and appellate authorities did not effectively address the documents or verify the competing material, the Revenue failed to disprove the claim. The revision therefore succeeded, and relief was granted on proof of inter-State movement of goods. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405038