COMMISSIONER SALES TAX Vs. PRAVIN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow has filed this revision against the order dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, Ghaziabad in respect of the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74.

(2.) During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee manufactured chemicals. It had its head office at, Ghaziabad. It received orders on phone from its customers at Delhi. The goods in pursuance of the said orders were supplied to the parties by road directly by the head office. The assessee had maintained a depot at Delhi. The said depot used to place orders with the head office at Ghaziabad which were received from customers at Delhi. The supplies in respect of these orders were directly made from the head office to customers. Bills at Ghaziabad and Delhi were prepared by one and the same person. There was difference in transport charges in respect of the goods supplied by the assessee to various customers. On these facts, the Sales Tax Officer held that the assessee was liable to pay Central sales tax. On first appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) allowed the appeal partly. On further appeals, both by the assessee as well as the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Sales Tax Tribunal has under the impugned order allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the department. The Tribunal has taken the view that the sales tax department has not placed any material to show that the goods were manufactured as per specifications and that the same goods were sent to the customers.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned standing counsel has invited my attention to Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding burden of proof in such a situation. His contention is that in view of the aforesaid provision the Sales Tax Tribunal has erred in placing a wrong burden of proof upon the department regarding which facts were specifically within the knowledge of the assessee. Because of the aforesaid wrong approach of law regarding the burden of proof, learned standing counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal under its impugned order are vitiated in law. I find there is force in the said submission of the learned standing counsel. Section 6-A. (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods.