Tvl. Madura Coasts (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether Sales Return transactions which are erroneously shown it in sales tax return as sales can be rectified eventually after submission of CA certificate alongwith the concern Invoice memos?
High Court states that, when the assessing authorities could accept the explanation of the assessee for the subsequent years, there is no reason for them to take a different stand in the instant year. Therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition warrant interference. As regards the aspect, namely, sales return, it is seen that the petitioner has enclosed the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountants along with their The Chartered Accountants have certified that the transactions in question were executed by the assessee and that they had been reversed in their books of account. In other words, the transactions became unfructified sales. It appears that for proving bona fides, the documents regarding reversal of export sales were produced before the assessing authority. The assessing authority has rejected this stand of the petitioner by stating that the relevant documents have not been submitted. High Court cannot appreciate this reason adduced by the assessing authority. When the petitioners deny the sales in question, they cannot do anything more. If the assessing authority is of the view that this is a false statement, the onus is on the authority. The petitioner cannot be expected to prove the negative. Therefore, the orders impugned in this writ petition stand set aside to that extent. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The subject matter pertains to the assessment year 2015-16. The second respondent issued notice dated 20.09.2017 calling upon the petitioner to file statutory declaration forms and other documents as the petitioner claimed exemption on certain transactions. Thereafter, the second respondent also issued a personal hearing notice dated 06.05.2019. The petitioner appeared before the respondents and also made available certain documents. Not satisfied with the stand taken by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 came to be passed and the total taxable turnover for the year 2015-16 under CST Act’56 was determined as follows:-
