TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Tribunal is right in placing onus upon the revenue in regard to exemption category of sales tax especially when section 11 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act 1967 in clear terms places burden of proof upon the assessee in regard to claim of exemption? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in applying the ratio of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kothari Products Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 119 STC page 553 for answering the claims of Pan masala products for exemption in the instant case on hand especially when the Court in the said decision confined its scope of examination only with regard to Gutka and not on all pan masala products to reject the claims of the revenue with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Qiwam. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on further appeal before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. In support of his claim, the assessee filed sample pouches of pan masala items, which disclosed that main item therein as betelnut, katha and chuna. In considering the claim of the assessee that zarda, quiwam and surti are tobacco products and could not be classified as pan masala product, the assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in 19 STC 412 J.SHAMDAS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 74 STC 187 RAVI AGENCIES v. STATE OF A.P. and 102 STC 566 CITY DISTRIBUTORS v. STATE OF PONDICHERRY and submitted that items in question being tobacco products merited exemption under the provisions of the Act. Apart from this, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was cancelled by the first Appellate Authority. Referring to the decisions reported in 19 STC 533 KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, wherein the Apex Court has held that 'Gutkha' was a tobacco product and exempted from Sales Tax, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's written submission. The Tribunal further pointed out that the relief sought for by the Revenue through written submission was only an after thought. Without preferring cross appeal, the Revenue could not seek such a recourse. Thus, the Tribunal held that without taking recourse by filing a Cross Appeal as per Section 37 of the PGST Act, the claim made through written submission could not be a ground for considering the claim of the Revenue. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
