2013 (10) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the petitioner has not proved with records that they have sold only agricultural produce when the petitioner has produced the documents before the Appellate Authority in proof of expenses incurred for producing shade trees? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the petitioner has not sold the Standing Trees when the Appellate Authority himself has observed that the appellants have proved with accounts with reference to expenses incurred for purchase of seeds, nursery development, employing human labour for lopping shade trees and the same was sold? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that in the absence of details of nature of sales the standing trees are not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the sale of shade trees. Thus in the absence of the above details, the First Appellate Authority rejected the assessee's claim that the standing shade trees sold by them are agricultural produce eligible for exemption. As against the said order, the assessee went on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee is before this court in this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us the cutting order issued by the Coimbatore District Forest Officer on the shade trees planted by the petitioner. Considering the fact that the removal of the Standing shade trees can....