1982 (3) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitionerfirm under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, the Act), for having made sales in favour of the registered dealers, were disallowed. The grounds for not accepting the sales or for disallowing the claim of the petitioner-firm, as disclosed in the impugned order, annexure P-1, are: (i) The declaration form S.T. XXII submitted by the dealer did not indicate whether the purchases had been made by the registered dealers for (a) resale, (b) manufacturing, or (c) inter-State sales, etc., (ii) The alleged purchasers who had furnished these declarations appear to be men of straw and could not make purchases of such heavy value, and   (iii) Normally, sales of this magnitude are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Kumar Kewal Kumar v. State [1972] 30 STC 352 and Maharaj Mal Hans Raj v. State of Punjab [1981] 48 STC 369, wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the claim of the petitioners for deductions under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act on somewhat similar grounds had been refuted by the authorities under the Act. Upsetting this these judgments lay down that the declaration furnished by an assessee in form S.T. XXII is Prima facie evidence of the sale having been made in favour of a registered dealer and has to be accepted unless the Assessing Authority has any cogent and reliable evidence to doubt the genuineness of the same or to reject the same. As already indicated, in the case in hand, no evidence has been referred to by any of the aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ho are alleged to have issued declarations in favour of the petitioner-firm, were present and both these dealers denied their signatures on the declarations furnished by them. This observation, if read properly in the context in which it had been made, indicates that while cases of those dealers, namely, M/s. G.M. Gupta Hosiery and M/s. Great India Hosiery, were being dealt with by the Assessing Authority, they denied the issuance of any declaration in form S.T. XXII in favour of the petitioner-firm. Neither those denials have even been put to the petitioner-firm nor has it been afforded any opportunity to cross-examine those dealers in the light of the declarations on which it sought to rely. After carefully examining the contents of the i....