2021 (5) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the petitioner, Mrs.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.V.Usha, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the sixth respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the file of the first respondent challenging the order passed by the second respondent exercising his suo motu revisional power, setting aside the order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) VI, Chennai, who allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and restoring the order of assessment passed by the first respondent dated 31.3.1997. The matt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber and date, quantity and local rate. The First Appellate Authority also found that the goods were transported under the delivery note in Form XX, which had been duly endorsed by the Check Post Officer containing the names of the consignor and the consignee. The First Appellate Authority concluded that except the statement that the same lot they sold on the same date in the same transport carrier, the Assessing Officer did not come out with any other clinching evidence to substantiate that the sales were inter-state sales. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by order dated 25.7.1997. The Revenue did not file any appeal against the said order dated 25.7.1997. 6. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner chose to exerc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the very same date after their arrival or the next day itself could not be a reason to hold that the transactions were interstate sales. In the said case, the assessee produced before the Appellate Authority the copies of sale pattials, invoices rendered by the agents as well as the excise gate pass and the above said documents clearly proved that the transactions were consignment sales as held by the Appellate Authority. Further, by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Ganesan Traders Vs. Union of India [reported in (1994) 95 STC 273], it was also held in the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tvl.P.M.P.Iron and Steel India Ltd., that the burden of proof was on the assessee to ....