9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-2004. 3.The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Wing officials on 09.03.2004 and four defects were noticed based on which show-cause notice was issued by the respondent on 04.04.2005 stating that on comparison of the actual physical stock held at the time of inspection in the business premises and the godown with that of the stock book, it revealed an excess stock of sale value of Rs. 81,000/-. The said offence was compounded and the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000/- was collected from the petitioner. The next allegation is with regard to verification of purchase list filed by the petitioner and by taking the details from the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order appears to be a very reasoned order, but however, on a closer scrutiny, it is seen that upto paragraph-7, the assessing officer has verbatim repeated the proposal in the notice dated 04.04.2005, extracted the entire explanation given by the petitioner, and the finding rendered by the respondent is only in paragraph-8, that too a single line. The petitioner has pointed out as to how the transactions effected by them were genuine transactions, and the allegation that the selling dealers are bogus dealers is false. Certain factual details were placed by the petitioner for the consideration of the respondent. However, the respondent, in a single line, stated that the Department has proved that the four dealers are bill traders and bogu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, which has been consistently followed by this Court in several decisions, one of which arising under the Central Sales Tax Act is in the case of K.A.Rubbers v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Hosur, in W.P.No.27470 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011. 6.With regard to burden of proof is concerned, Section 10(2) of the TNGST Act casts a burden upon the petitioner to prove that the purchases effected by them on such goods had already been subjected to tax under the TNGST Act. The petitioner would state that they have produced voluminous records to prove the said fact and that the benefit of second sale exemption cannot be denied on the ground that the selling dealer is not found in the subsequent peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
