TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he burden of proof under section 6A of the CST Act is on the assessee-appellant ? (iii) Whether the S.T.A.T., A.P., being revisional authority-cum-appellate authority as per the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 410 (SC) failed to examine each and every transaction vis-a-vis the evidence produced by the appellant and then decide about the true nature of the transactions under dispute in this appeal ?" 2. Heard Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. M/s. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd., Tanuku, is an assessee manufacturing, selling and transferring the cotton yarn and waste. It was finally assessed by the C.T.O., Tanuku-I circle for the assessment year 1993-94 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority had allowed exemption on certain turnovers under section 6A of the CST Act. The exempted turnover, inter alia, relates to depot/branch transfer of cotton yarn made from Tanuku to its Maharashtra (Bombay and Ichalkaranji), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he management of the depot/branch of the company on November 1993 which is completely beyond the assessment year 1992-93 and beyond a part of the assessment year 1993-94. x x xx xx 45. We are convinced that the D.C. has merely proceeded on surmises and conjectures without establishing the fact that ingredients of section 3(a) or section 3(b) are satisfied in this case. He has generalised the issue without citing specific instances. He has merely observed at page 9 that revision is made because of additional information, but we do not find that the so-called additional information, in the form of 3 statements recorded in 1995, throw any light on specific transactions relating to these two assessment years. In fact, the statements recorded are themselves general and are of no assistance to the revisional authority. The appellant contends that the Act and Rules do not support the case of the Deputy Commissioner and there is no essential c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; x x xx xx 50. The place of business is an inclusive definition and covers any place where the dealer keeps his goods. In the present case, the dealer has kept the goods at the transporters premises after arrival and thus, there is delivery to the appellant. Thereafter the goods are in legal custody of the appellant. The goods are sold to prospective buyers at the destination and the delivery is organised at the transporter premises by independent delivery instructions of the appellant's depot. This amounts to taking delivery of the goods from the appellant at the transports premises but not taking delivery from the transporters. On the facts and circumstances of the case, effecting the deliveries at the transporters premises by the appellant does not amount to a delivery on inter-State sale/movement but it is a delivery after germination of inter-State movement covered by the lorry receipts in appellant's favour from Tanuku to various places. Further, the language of section 6A of the CST Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities have power to examine the matter beyond the F form, declarations and the Deputy Commissioner acting in revision can go beyond the form F and investigate the matter. Section 20 of the APGST Act which provides revision power also contemplates that the revision authority can make enquiries as he thinks fit. Thus merely because the F forms are filed and accepted by the assessing authority, it cannot be correct to say that no further enquiry should be made." 9. In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, it has been held (pages 508, 514 and 515 in 134 STC) : "57. Section 6A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within the definition of 'sale' would not be exigible to tax, the burden whereof would evidently be on the assessee. We have noticed hereinbefore that whereas prior to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 6A the dealer had an option of filing a declaration in form F; after such amendment, he does not have such option, insofar as in term....