1996 (5) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... material and incidental goods from the registered dealers, he was not entitled to claim the set-off of tax under section 8(1)(a) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, because he had failed to prove that the selling registered dealers have paid the tax on these sales?" 2.. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus: The assessee/ applicant, a registered dealer under the Act, is a manufacturer of threshers and other iron and steel goods. For the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982 he was assessed to tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam, Circle-I, by order dated June 29, 1985 passed in assessment case No. 183/82 (Provincial). During this period, the applicant purchased Rs. 90,002 worth of tax-paid raw material....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce of tax amount has been provided. The idea behind it that once the goods has suffered the tax then on principle of single point tax, the same goods should not suffer tax again; therefore, a set-off has been provided. The question in the present case is that whether the assessee has really discharged his burden that the goods has suffered the tax or not. As per the order of the assessing officer, it is established that the assessee had purchased the goods from the registered dealer. The registered dealer has been defined under section 2(m) and the taxpaid goods has been defined in section 2(rr), which reads as under: "Section 2(rr): 'tax-paid goods' in relation to a dealer means any goods specified in Parts II to VI of Schedule II whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the goods have suffered the tax or not. Once the law defines the registered dealer and tax-paid goods, the assessee, i.e., purchasing dealer, produced the bill issued by the registered dealer then his burden is discharged and he cannot be held responsible or he cannot be forced to go around from pillar to post to collect the material in order to get the rebate. Rather, it should be on the assessing authority to obtain the necessary particulars if any suspicion arises. In Govindan & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975] 35 STC 50 (Mad.) the question was that whether the goods suffered the tax or not in a single point tax and in that context, it was observed: To claim the benefit of tax on the ground that the sales effected by the assessees ....