1955 (6) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;                                                                                                                   Rs. Goods sold not covered by the registration certificates....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th September, 1951. The petitioners then went in revision before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner who refused to interfere with the findings of the lower Court, vide his order dated 3rd December, 1952. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners. His contentions are: (1) It is not a fact that the sales to registered dealers in respect of which deduction is claimed are not covered by the registration certifi- cates of the purchasing dealers. Since the list of registered dealers has not been published by the Department as required by section 9 of the Pepsu General Sales Tax Ordinance, 2006, it is the duty of the assess- ing authority to check the facturn of registration from his departmental record and to call upon the dealers to subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her produced an attested copy of the registration certi- ficate of Messrs. Hargo Lal Mool Chand (Nar. III-185) which was issued on 15th December, 1949, whereas the sale was made on 7th January, 1950, i.e., after the issue of registration certificate. In another case, namely, Mansa Ram Rattan Lal (Nar. III-639), it has been shown that the application for registration certificate was submitted on 5-10-06 (9th January, 1950) whereas the sales took place on 7th February, 1950. I see much force in the contentions of the petitioners. So long as the list of registered dealers is not published, it is not quite correct to place the onus of proof of registration on the assessees as it is not within their power to produce the registration certificates....