1963 (11) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relates to their assessment to sales tax for the year ended 31st March, 1960. The dispute between the parties is whether the transactions impugned in these proceedings are "purchases" exigible to tax under section 5(4) of the "Act". In order that those transactions may be exigible to tax for the half year ended 31st March, 1958, they should be "last purchases", and for the year ended 31st March, 1960, they should be "first purchases". The goods with which we are concerned in these cases are hides and skins, which are declared goods within the meaning of that expression found in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The contention of the assessees is that they did not purchase the goods in question but they dealt with those goods o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the opinion that once it is established that the petitioners who are "dealers" had dealt with the goods in question, they have to establish that the transactions in question are not exigible to tax. This is clearly a wrong view of the law. The law as we understand it is that it is for the Revenue to establish that any particular transaction is exigible to tax and not vice versa. In these cases, the Revenue should have established that the transactions in dispute are purchase transactions. On the side of the Revenue, no evidence whatsoever has been led to show that the transactions in question are purchase transactions. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced their accounts in support of their claim that they dealt with the goods in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld therein that there was no liability on the part of the petitioners to pay sales tax in respect of the impugned transactions. In this case, we are not concerned with the other points decided in that case. The learned Government Pleader, relying on the second proviso to section 5(7) of the "Act", contended that it is for the petitioners to prove that the transactions in question are not exigible to tax. That proviso reads thus: "Provided further that in the case of an assessment made under sub-section (2), (3) or (4), the burden of proving that any sale or purchase effected by a dealer is not liable to tax shall lie on the dealer." The contention of the Government Pleader is not correct. Before the proviso in question can come into oper....