9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration, yarn worth Rs. 1,65,04,387 had been transferred to Delhi depot by way of stock transfers. The assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfers and treated the movement of goods to Delhi depot as inter-State sales. It appears that the matter went to the Tribunal. Similar dispute also arose in the assessment year 1969-70. In the assessment year 1969-70, the assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfer, but the same was accepted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed revision before this court. This court vide order dated July 18, 1989 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded back the case to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was rejected and the same have been treated as inter-State sales. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated March 8, 1995 dismissed the appeal. It appears that before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, the applicant placed some of the copies of the indent and submitted that in the stock transfer memos, in fact, indent number was mentioned. First appellate authority refused to rely upon such indent on the ground that they were subsequently prepared. Being aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, the applicant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be rejected. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. It was the case of the applicant that the goods were dispatched from Modinagar to Delhi depot, its own branch by way of stock transfers and they were not in pursuance of prior contract of sales. Since, it was the claim of the applicant that the movements of goods were by way of stock transfers and not in pursuance of any contract of sale, initial burden lies upon the dealer to prove its case even in the absence of section 6A of the Central Act. Complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
