Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2010 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 1082 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWhether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the property purchased by the assessee from bank in public auction were not worn out or beaten jewellery falling under entry 3 of Part A of the First Schedule taxable in the hands of the assessee at the point of last purchase but jewels falling under entry 25 in Part B of the First Schedule taxable at the point of first sale in the hands of the seller by placing the burden of proof on wrong shoulders, namely, on the assessing officer, ignoring that section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 places the burden of proof on the assessee? Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that sale of jewels pledged to the bank is taxable at the point of first sale (vide Lord Krishna Bank Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment I), Sales Tax Office [1997 (12) TMI 618 - KERALA HIGH COURT] ? Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error of law in not ignoring the purchase turnover of worn out jewellery which would fall under section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for arriving at the total turnover for the purpose of section 3E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959? Held that:- The purchase turnover of jewellery from the bank on auction for a sum of ₹ 21,88,601 was deleted from the turnover, and if that amount is deleted, the total turnover comes below ₹ 50 lakhs. Therefore, the authorities below correctly came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to compounded rate of tax. It is a concurrent finding based on valid material and evidence. It is a question of fact and it is not a perverse order. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) has not produced any material evidence before us to take a contrary view from that of the authorities below. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Under these circumstances, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue.
|