TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d , was then known). The Board had by its impugned judgment accepted the appeal of the present non-petitioner-dealer and set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated February 23, 1990 upholding the order dated August 17, 1990 of the assessing authority (AA) made under section 9, the CST Act read with section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (the RST Act), inter alia, holding that certain transactions claimed by the dealer to be branch transfers were actually inter-State sales, and, therefore, levied tax under the CST Act, interest under section 11B, RST Act, and penalty under section 16(1)(i), RST Act. The order of the AA to that extent was also set aside. 2.. The facts giving rise to the application for revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently checked the books of the dealer at its premises during the course of which another bill came to light which was for ten drums of thinner originally made out in the name of a purchaser in Delhi which had been overwritten to show the dealer s head office in Delhi as the purchaser. 5.. The dealer was asked to explain. The AA considered the dealer s explanation to be unsatisfactory and took the transactions in the eight drums found in transit, the twenty drums covered by the five bills found with the salesman and the ten drums covered by the overwritten bill to be in the course of inter-State sales and not branch transfers and in the course of regular assessment proceedings by an order dated August 17, 1990 levied tax under the CST Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer. Section 6A, CST Act in terms says as much. The dealer may at his option furnish a declaration in form F . The burden of proof is not automatically discharged even in that case. The point to note is that the law places the burden of proof on the dealer and not on the Revenue as done by the Board. 9.. It is not in dispute that the statement of the salesman, who can be said to be privy to the mode of sales adopted by the dealer and the manner in which they were represented in the books were to the effect that the bills in question found on him as well eight of the drums in transit were for goods to be supplied di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s name appear for it to be over written. 13.. It is settled-law that the dealer being a person in law its head office and branch are not separate juridical personalities and if the goods moved directly from the dealer s factory to the purchaser in Delhi it would be in the course of inter-State sale and the intervention of the head office in Delhi for the purposes of billing and receipt of payment would be to no avail and would not make the movement of the goods into one in the course of branch transfer. This is precisely the import of the Supreme Court s rulings in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) and in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
