The burden of proof for exemption claim under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 lies with the petitioner, and the production of necessary documents is essential to substantiate stock transfers.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in T.A. No. 486/03 dated 12.06.2007 and quash the same as invalid and illegal, and without jurisdiction and further directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on merits under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 12.06.2007 passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal in T.A.No.486/03. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

"6. We have considered the arguments on both the sides and also verified the connected records. It is seen from the records that the respondent had originally been assessed by the proceedings dated 28.6.1996 on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.6,64,77,414/- and Rs.3,36,40,102/- respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 1994-95. The taxable turnover determined above included a turnover of Rs.29,95,525/- on which the claim of exemption as branch transfer was disallowed by the assessing authority and treated as direct interstate sales. Against the above assessment the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), VI, Chennai. After considering the arguments and the connected records, the first appellate authority in his orders dated 11.12.1998 had confirmed the assessment on a turnover of Rs.10,23,728/-. The balance turnover of Rs.19,71,803/- was remanded back to the assessing authority for verification of the claim of exemption with reference to the documents produced by the appellants. When the assessing authority issued notice with reference to the remand directions of the first appellate authority, the appellants had filed the documents relating to the branch transfer not only for the remanded turnover of Rs.19,71,803/-, but also for the confirmed turnover of Rs.10,23,728/-. Since the first appellate authority had already confirmed the assessment on the turnover of Rs.10,23,728/- the assessing officer had not taken into consideration, the documents produced by the appellants. He had confirmed the assessment on this turnover when he passed fresh orders on 31.12.2002. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the instructions issued in Acts Cell IV/41367/2000 dated 10.7.2000 had instructed the authorities to accept the declarations in Form F also and to rectify the assessment under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Though the appellants had not produced the declarations in Form F, the other documents produced by them ought to have been admitted by the assessing authority and also the first appellate authority. But the claim of the learned counsel is found to be not acceptable. The instructions relied on by the learned counsel relates to declarations that are obtained and produced subsequent to original assessment. Even the learned counsel himself had admitted that the appellants are not having the required declarations and that therefore, the claim for rectification of assessment under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is misplaced. Further, still the original assessment in this case was made on 28.6.1996. The rectification, if any, permitted under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, has to be made within 5 years from the date of order. The period of limitation, therefore, had expired on 27.6.2001. The appellants had produced the other documents by their letter dated 6.12.2002 only. By the time they had filed the letter before the assessing officer, the period of limitation provided under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 had long expired. Further, when the first appellate authority by his order dated 11.12.1998 had confirmed the assessment on the disputed turnover of Rs.10,23,728/-, the appellants ought to have preferred second appea