VISHNU REROLLING MILLS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in iron rods both in its plain and T. O. R. form. It is aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.1988 of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gaya Circle, Gaya, declining to grant it exemption from payment of sales tax despite submission of declaration in Form- IXC, as affirmed by the appellate authority by his order dated 20.12.1989. The short question involved in this petition relates to the interpretation and requirements of Sections 11, 22 and 23 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 read with Rules 12 and 14 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act and the Tax Rules ). The aforesaid provisions provide for recovery of sales tax at one point only. As a consequence, when a manufacturer purchases raw materials and pays sales tax upon the same, he is exempted from paying sales tax on the finished product to the extent of the tax paid on the raw material. For the purpose, it is required to furnish a declaration in Form- IXC from the original purchaser. What are the documents required to accompany the Form- IXC declaration under which exemption is sought, is explained in Rule 12 and 14 of the Tax Rules to include cash memo. or bills of the articles sold and the sale price reflective of the tax component.

(2.) The original authority and the appellate authority have both denied exemption on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish any material in the form of cash memo. or other bills displaying the amount of sales tax paid by him for the raw materials to the original seller. When exemption is claimed, the foundational fact of fulfilling the requirement subject to which the exemption is to be granted is to be proved by the person claiming the exemption. Once the factual foundation is laid, the question of considering an order of granting or declining exemption, as the case may be, shall arise. If the foundational facts are not laid by the person on whom the onus lies to claim exemption, we find it difficult to interfere with the impugned orders. A Division Bench of this Court in KUMAR MEDICO, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR,1998 1 PLJR 10 considering a similar question has held at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 as follows:-

(3.) It would appear from the order of the assessing officer that such requirements were probably not fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, he refused to grant exemption with respect to the total amount of Rs.23,43,000/-.13. Although Mr. Sahay contended that the assessee had produced sufficient materials before the assessing officer, with respect to total amount but in our view, in absence of any statement in this regard or specific findings of the authority, it will not be possible to take a different view. In these backgrounds, this question also has to be answered against the assessee. If the petitioner was unable to discharge the initial onus that lay on him by producing the necessary cash memo. and bills to satisfy the authority that, in fact, sales tax was paid by him on the raw material purchased and the extent of the same when Form-IXC would have been a supporting document, we find no reason to come to any different conclusion than that arrived at by the original and the appellate authority. The writ petition is dismissed.