TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been given to the revisionist for the said invoice. So far as other 22 invoices are concerned, the same have been disbelieved. The present proceeding is an original proceeding, i.e., the revisionist is claiming concession rate on the strength of Form C. Once the corresponding State authority has sent information that only one purchase made by the purchasing dealer could be verified, the benefit of other purchases as alleged to be made by the revisionist against the said Form C cannot be granted. The onus is upon the dealer to prove its case beyond doubt when the dealer is claiming concession rate of tax. The said onus has not been discharged by the revisionist. The Supreme Court in the case of ITC. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zaffar Nagar for the assessment year 2013 14 (Central) in Appeal No. 218/2019. The above-noted revision was admitted vide order dated 05.12.2022 on the following question of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in giving benefit of Central Sale against I Form C No. 4930498 amounting to Rs. 2,75,094/- instead of Rs. 2,11,47,201/- received from M/s Yash Traders, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan mentioning the utilization of list of 23 sales invoices on the back of Form C? 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant made central sale amounting to Rs. 5,43,43,928/- of Form C. The revisionist made central sale to one M/s Yash Traders, Rajasthan and claimed concession rate on the str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen Form C as there was neither any cutting, nor overwriting and the same was duly issued by the Sales Tax authorities of the respective States, has accepted the same as the same bear the stamp of the issuing authority of Rajasthan. 5. He further submits that the revisionist has no control over the purchasing dealer as to whether he has shown its purchases in its books of account or as to how the goods are being used subsequently. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax [Sales Tax Revision No. 46/1991, decided on 20.10.2003] and prays for allowing the revision. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been disbelieved. 9. The present proceeding is an original proceeding, i.e., the revisionist is claiming concession rate on the strength of Form C. Once the corresponding State authority has sent information that only one purchase made by the purchasing dealer could be verified, the benefit of other purchases as alleged to be made by the revisionist against the said Form C cannot be granted. The onus is upon the dealer to prove its case beyond doubt when the dealer is claiming concession rate of tax. The said onus has not been discharged by the revisionist. 10. The judgement relied upon by the revisionist in Star Paper Mills Limited (supra) is of no aid to it as in the said case, in the first paragraph of the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
