Skip to content


Banarsi Das and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Sales Tax Revision No. 155 of 1984
Judge
Reported in[1986]61STC206(All)
AppellantBanarsi Das and Sons
RespondentCommissioner of Sales Tax
Appellant Advocate R.C. Sharma, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - it is true that the assessee has to prove its case under section 12-a of the act but in case it had failed to prove then a categorical finding has to be recorded before imposing a tax that the purchases were not made locally but were made from outside u......filed by the assessee under section 11(1) of the u.p. sales tax act against the judgment of the sales tax tribunal, aligarh bench, aligarh, dated 29th january, 1983, relating to the assessment year 1979-80.2. in the instant revision, the only point which has been raised by the counsel for the assessee is that the assessee had submitted that it made local purchases and goods were not imported by it from outside u.p. and until and unless a finding is recorded that the goods were imported from outside u.p. and not purchased locally, no tax could be imposed on it. after hearing counsel for the parties i feel that the contention raised by the counsel for the assessee has some force. the tribunal has merely drawn an inference against the assessee that since it did not produce the vouchers.....
Judgment:

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act against the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh Bench, Aligarh, dated 29th January, 1983, relating to the assessment year 1979-80.

2. In the instant revision, the only point which has been raised by the counsel for the assessee is that the assessee had submitted that it made local purchases and goods were not imported by it from outside U.P. and until and unless a finding is recorded that the goods were imported from outside U.P. and not purchased locally, no tax could be imposed on it. After hearing counsel for the parties I feel that the contention raised by the counsel for the assessee has some force. The Tribunal has merely drawn an inference against the assessee that since it did not produce the vouchers of sales before the authority at the time of survey, it cannot be accepted that it made all local purchases. It is true that the assessee has to prove its case under Section 12-A of the Act but in case it had failed to prove then a categorical finding has to be recorded before imposing a tax that the purchases were not made locally but were made from outside U.P. Since the aforesaid finding has not been recorded by the Tribunal the order passed by it cannot be sustained.

3. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed to the extent stated above. The order of the Tribunal to that extent is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above on the basis of the evidence available on the record. However the parties shall bear their own costs.

4. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as required under Section 11(8) of the Act.


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