TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the turnover relating to sale of gunnies in favour of three firms, viz., M/s. Indian Barytes and Chemicals, M/s. Ramalingeswara Pulverising Mills and M/s. Star Barytes, Cuddapah (Private) Limited. At the relevant time, the export of barytes was canalised and only M.M.T.C. or mineholders holding lease as on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal on the ground that the export was not by the firms/company to whom the petitioner sold the gunnies but by other individuals and presumably there was a sale by the said firms/company to the said individual exporters. This view is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us. It is argued that since the persons who exported, namely, K. Obul Reddy in the case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .M. Ramanatha Reddy was a partner in M/s. Ramalingeswara Pulverising Mills, it does not follow that the said firms became the mine-holders. It would not be right to confuse the firm with the partner or to treat them as synonymous in the context. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said firms were the mine-holders nor is there anything to show that the mining rights of the said partners w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were actually exported by the purchaser. In this case no such proof is forthcoming. The relevant facts must be proved by the person who claims exemption or seeks a particular benefit. It is not a matter of presumption. As stated above, there is no evidence that export was effected by the firms/company which purchased gunnies from the petitioner or that the persons who actually exported barytes w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
