Back
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA
Crompton Greaves Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the transaction and penalty imposition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding genuineness of documents. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of inter-state sale classification. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. definition of inter-state transaction criteria. (Para 13) |
| 5. conclusion reversing previous orders. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J.
CM-218-CII-2011
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
VATAP-1-2011 (O&M)
2. The appellant has come up in appeal against the order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure A-10) passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a dealer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods, electrical fittings at Mumbai and has branches all over India including Jalandhar. The appellant M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. purchased EFS KV.350 MVA, Oil type, Extensible Fuse Switchgear from M/s. CG Lucy Switchgears Limited, Nasik and the same were sold to M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Armitsar and the selling dealer was asked to issue Invoice and GR in the name of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Amritsar in
The court established that the burden of proof lies with the appellant to substantiate claims of tax-free transactions, which was not met in this case.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
