TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside(except with respect to the turnover relating to groundnut oilcake) and the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bangalore dated 20-8-1970 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) Bangalore dated 22-1-1970 (against subject to the rider that the turnover relating to ground nut oilcake shall be exempt from tax) is restored. No order as to costs. - C.A. 1202 OF 1975 - - - Dated:- 29-3-1994 - JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. AND HANSARIA B.L. , JJ. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against an order of the High Court of Mysore dismissing summarily the Sales Tax Revision Petition filed by the State. 2. It was the commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of such sale or such part of the turnover relating to such sale. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the burden of proving that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sale referred to in sub-section (1) or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale. 3. The only question before the Tribunal was whether the respondent-dealer has discharged that burden? The bills issued by him contained an endorsement that the price charged was inclusive of tax. The Tribunal held that the said endorsement is no evidence of collection of tax. It said: In our view, only because it is in the bills shown the price inclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and material in that case. It is not a matter of law nor can the mode of proof be reduced to a proposition of law. Sub-section (2) or sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Amendment Act do not provide for such a requirement. In such a situation, it cannot be said as a general proposition that unless the tax collected is reflected in the account books of the dealer, it cannot be said to have been collected. No such general proposition can be evolved in a matter totally within the realm of appreciation of evidence. It is up to the dealer to discharge the said burden by producing such material as he can and it is for the appropriate authority to say whether the dealer has succeeded in discharging the burden or not. In this view of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDIA ORDER Delay condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his Writ Petition No. 3159 of 1982 was wrongly placed on board along with other group of petitions where the issue involved was similar to the one which was decided by the Full Bench of the High Court in Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd. v. Government of India ((1986) 23 ELT 87 (Del) Along with the said group of matters, his writ petition was also dismissed. Therefore, he had to come to this Court by way of the present special leave petition. The petitioner should have approached the High Court by way of a review pointing out the said error. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to approach the High Court in review. If there is any delay the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
