Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1097 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTLiability of tax - Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - applicant having merely supply and services for setting up tele-networking system - HELD THAT:- It does appear, that part of the reasoning offered by the Tribunal is erroneous, insofar as the Tribunal has observed that the transaction had to be bifurcated into two parts since the assessee was having a godown inside the State of U.P. and since the assessee's name was mentioned as the consigner in the excise documents. Clearly, existence of the godown inside the State of U.P. was not decisive to determine whether the movement of the goods had been occasioned by a preexisting contract for sale of goods. Similarly, mere mention of the assessee's name as the consignor of the goods was largely irrelevant. In face of such finding which have neither been shown to be erroneous nor perverse and in absence of the contract document itself being produced and further in absence of it being established before the authorities that the entire quantities of goods had been imported pursuant to pre-existing contract for sale of those goods, inside the State of U.P., merely because the assessee had executed a single contract inside the State, could not lead to the conclusion that all goods had been imported pursuant to that pre-existing contract for sale especially when undisputedly the assessee had sold/transferred some of those imported goods to outside the State of U.P. at Kerala and Haryana - In cases such as this, the burden to establish that the particular/identified goods had been imported inside the State pursuant to a pre-existing contract rested on the assessee. The facts required to establish such a transaction were facts in the special knowledge of the assessee and those must have been shown to exist amongst others from the books of account and contract documents, before benefit of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be availed. In the instant case, the Tribunal has found absence of the books of accounts of the assessee. There is nothing on record wherefrom it may be inferred that the assessee had infact discharged its burden - As to the case set up under Section 3-F of the Act, clearly, it was for the assessee to have set up a case based on evidence to establish the same. It having not been done, it is too late in the day to allow that case to be pleaded as in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot set the clock back. Revision dismissed.
|