1979 (7) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The assessee filed the bills relating to the aforesaid purchases and contended that those purchases were only second purchases in this State so as not to be taxed. The assessing authority did not accept this claim of the assessee and brought the turnover to tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with the assessing authority. When the matter came on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was that the purchases were only second purchases and that the bills produced mentioned that the goods in question had already suffered tax. The contention for the revenue was that the assessee must prove that the goods in question had already suffered tax. Though the revenue did not deny that the deal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the State the contention is that section 10 of the Sales Tax Act provides that the burden of proving that any dealer or any of his transactions is not liable to tax under the Act shall lie on such dealer. Taking the stand on this section, it was contended for the revenue that the assessee has not proved that these transactions are not liable to be taxed. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee had done whatever it could, namely, by producing the relevant purchase bills and the names and addresses of the persons who sold the goods to the assessee. As recorded by the Tribunal, the revenue did not deny that the dealers were in existence or that they were registered dealers. It was, however, stated that the registration has subsequent....