TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (6) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration in this tax case is as to whether the interference of the Tribunal with the order of the lower authorities disallowing a sum of Rs. 23,557.47 as second sales of oil is proper. The assessee in this case is a manufacturer of gingerly oil. He not only manufactured oil but also purchased the same locally. He sold oil locally as well as inter-State, but he had not, however, maintained sepa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of second sales of oil. Aggrieved against the adoption of such a formula by the assessing authority, the assessee filed an appeal and the appellate authority also affirmed the assessment order. The Tribunal, on appeal, however, purporting to follow the decision in Rathinaswamy Chettiar v. The State of Madras[1962] 13 S.T.C. 419., where this court, in a similar situation invoked the presumption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise", especially after the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Narayana Nadar & Co.[1968] 21 S.T.C. 25 (S.C.). Rathinaswamy Chettiar v. The State of Madras(1), though dealt with a similar situation, was rendered under the provisions of Madras Act 9 of 1939. But we are concerned here with the provisions of Madras Act 1 of 1959 wherein there are specific provisions which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere later tanned and sold, this court pointed out in Anwaraulla AM. Ghouse & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu[1971] 28 S.T.C. 610 at 614., that: "Although the assessee has maintained accounts as required by rule 26, still, it is for the assessee to establish the particular raw hides which have gone into the manufacture of tanned hides and skins. But, if he fails to do so, and has mixed up on the ground....