Case Law Details
In the case of Ranomal Vs. State of M.P. (1985) 18 VKN 53 (M.P.)= 1984 MPLJ 585 it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the burden which rests on the dealer is discharged by producing a bill which does not contain rubber stamp endorsement in the nature required to be affixed by the selling dealer under Section 7, as absence of stamp is prima facie proof of the fact that the goods sold by the selling dealer were not of local origin and, therefore, had incurred liability to the entry tax in the hands of the selling dealer. In view of the law laid down in case of Ranomal (Supra) and Mohan Singh (Supra) the petitioner is entitled to take advantage of the prima facie import of absence of rubber stamp.
In the absence of any material collected by the respondents/Revenue to indicate that the goods had not subjected entry in to the local area and taxable event had not occurred earlier, in my considered view, the petitioner who had discharged his burden by producing the bills which had no rubber seal to the effect “local goods for the area”, cannot be held liable to pay the tax in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
Explore the legal case of M/s Goel Coal Co. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding entry tax. Understand the significance of rubber seal on invoices and how the absence of such seal affects the liability of the petitioner. Read the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s order dated 7/3/2008, highlighting key legal points. Get insights into the burden of proof, implications of the Ranomal case, and the petitioner’s entitlement to the prima facie import of the absence of a rubber stamp. Stay informed about the intricacies of entry tax laws in this comprehensive legal analysis.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
