Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2010 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 868 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTWhether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of learned AETC passed on September 25, 2006 when the said order was passed without complying with the earlier two orders passed by the Tribunal itself, whereby specific directions were given to the authority to act in a particular manner and conduct the enquiry accordingly? Whether the deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the PGST Act, 1948 can be disallowed in the case of selling dealer even if it has furnished the declaration form ST-XXII obtained from purchasing dealers and has complied with rule 26(1) of the PGST Rules, 1949? Whether in a case where Government Printed ST-XXII forms are issued by the purchasing dealers to the selling dealer, it is the duty of Department to find to whom these declarations have been issued and how the said dealers have accounted for those forms and no onus can be shifted upon the selling dealer on these issues? Held that:- mere denial by the said purchasing dealers was self-serving and could not be held against the petitioner. If declaration furnished by the purchasers was found to be defective, the said dealers would be liable to pay the tax. The learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to show either that the concerned dealers, who were sought to be summoned, were produced or that there was no requirement in law to do so. In such situation, the finding to the effect that the petitioner failed to discharge burden of sales being genuine, cannot be sustained in law. The questions of law have to be answered in favour of the petitioner-dealer and against the Revenue.
|