Skip to content


Bandamidi Rajaiah and Sons Vs. Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 1 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1978]42STC145(AP)
AppellantBandamidi Rajaiah and Sons
RespondentBoard of Revenue, Commercial Taxes
Appellant AdvocateS. Dasaratharama Reddi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....by the appellant and if it felt any verification of the information given was necessary it should have called for further particulars or had the information furnished by the assessee verified. we are satisfied that the burden laid on the assessee has been discharged and that the board has committed an error in revising the order of the assistant commissioner......for consideration in this special appeal is whether the appellant-assessee has discharged the burden laid upon him under section 7-a of the andhra pradesh general sales tax act to show that the goods in question, viz., moha seeds and neem seeds, have suffered tax at the point of first purchase and that, therefore, the turnovers relating to these two items are not exigible to tax. the board of revenue exercising its powers under section 20(1) revised the order of the assistant commissioner on the ground that the burden of proof laid upon the assessee under section 7-a of the act has not been discharged. section 7-a puts the burden of proof on the dealer. it is for the dealer to show that any sale or purchase effected by him is not liable to tax or is liable to be taxed at a reduced.....
Judgment:

S. Obul Reddi, C.J.

1. The main question that arises for consideration in this special appeal is whether the appellant-assessee has discharged the burden laid upon him under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to show that the goods in question, viz., moha seeds and neem seeds, have suffered tax at the point of first purchase and that, therefore, the turnovers relating to these two items are not exigible to tax. The Board of Revenue exercising its powers under Section 20(1) revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the burden of proof laid upon the assessee under Section 7-A of the Act has not been discharged. Section 7-A puts the burden of proof on the dealer. It is for the dealer to show that any sale or purchase effected by him is not liable to tax or is liable to be taxed at a reduced rate. The case of the appellant in this appeal is that the sales effected by him were second sales and, therefore, were not liable to tax. Under entry 3 of Schedule IV, moha seed is liable to tax at the point of first purchase in the State and so also neem seeds. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order has been revised by the Board of Revenue holding that the appellant is not entitled to the exemption claimed. According to the Board of Revenue, the sales are first sales in his hands and, therefore, they are liable to tax. In this connection, Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel for the appellant, invited our attention to the order of the Assistant Commissioner to show that the burden of proof laid upon the appellant has been discharged by him. The assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer) had issued a notice to the appellant to show that the sales in question were second sales in his hands. In reply to that notice the appellant submitted a detailed list of the registered dealers from whom he purchased moha seeds and requested him to grant exemption on that turnover. The appellant also furnished details regarding the dates of purchase, the names of the parties and their addresses, the bill numbers, quantity and the amount involved. The assessing officer did not make any further enquiry or verification but negatived the claim put forth by the appellant. When once the appellant furnishes the necessary information to show that the goods had suffered tax already at the point of first purchase, it is for the assessing authority to verify the correctness of the information furnished by the assessee. All the particulars necessary were given in reply to the show cause notice. Even in respect of sales of neem seeds he submitted full details of the dates of purchase, names of parties, the quantity and the value of the goods, etc. It was the case of the assessee that he purchased the neem seeds through the local commission agents and furnished all the details. No attempt was made by the Commercial Tax Officer even in the case of neem seeds to cause an enquiry relating to the particulars. When the burden laid upon the assessee has been discharged by him and when there is nothing to rebut the evidence furnished by him it is not open to the Board of Revenue on that material to say that he has not dicharged the burden cast on him under Section 7-A. The approach of the Board is wrong. If the Board felt not satisfied with the particulars furnished by the appellant and if it felt any verification of the information given was necessary it should have called for further particulars or had the information furnished by the assessee verified. Without making any such effort, the Board held that the burden laid under Section 7-A on the assessee has not been discharged. We are satisfied that the burden laid on the assessee has been discharged and that the Board has committed an error in revising the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

2. In the result, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is set aside, the order of the Assistant Commissioner restored and the appeal allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //