TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally right in affirming the order of the First Appellate Authority in respect of allowance of the claim of second sale exemption even when the registration number of the socalled seller belonged to some other dealer ? 2. The material facts for disposal of this revision are that the assessee is the dealer in Iron and Steel and assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, P.N.Palayam Circle, Coimbatore for the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.50,82,359/- and Rs.Nil. The assessment was over on 26.2.1997. It appears that on 20.2.1997, the Enforcement Wing Officers of the Commercial Tax Department cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealer had not filed A1 monthly returns for these years, the Assessing Officer has not taken any steps to trace out this seller but treated them as a bill trader and assessed the appellant, which is contrary to various decisions of this Court. The Revenue's further appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed on the ground that the Department has issued Form-XX Delivery Note to the selling dealer and the Registration Certificate was valid for the relevant assessement years. In that circumstances of the case, the burden of proof cast upon the assessee has been discharged and it is for the Revenue to proceed further in accordance with the statutory provision against those dealers, who have sold the goods. The correctness of the same is put i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Certificate of Karpaga Vinayaga Traders has been renewed for the above said years, the said dealer did not file any monthly returns and had not submitted the accounts for the final check. The conclusion so arrived at by the Assessing Officer was totally incorrect that the selling dealer had been registered with the Department with effect from 1994-95 and further, the dealer had renewed the Registration Certificate for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97. Though the dealer did not file any A1 monthly returns for these years, the Assessing Officer has not taken any steps to trace out this seller, but treated them as a bill trader and consequently assessed the appellant, which is contrary to the decision in NATIONAL IRON TRADERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NADU VS. CHAMUNDESWARI ENTERPRISES reported in (1983) 52 STC 124, the Division Bench of this Court has held that if a sale effected by an assessee is not a first sale, which is only taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,1959 then under the provisions of the Act, that sale cannot be brought within the net of taxation and it is for the Revenue to search out the first seller and levy tax on the first sale. It is not for the assessee, who is the subsequent seller, to show that the first sale has been taxed. The onus on the subsequent seller is only to point out that there has been a first sale and the onus is not on him to show that the first sale has, infact suffered tax. 9. In the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. C.K. GAJAPATHY....