High CourtsDivision Bench(1958) 04 AP CK 0004

P. Anwar Badsha Sahib and Company and Another vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 8 April 1958 · Citation: (1958) 9 STC 546

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chandra Reddy, O.C.J. · Sanjeeva Rao Nayudu, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Assessments No''s. 657/51-52 and 4241/52-53 and T.R.C. No''s. 53, 54 and 55 of 1956

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 279 words

Chandra Reddy, Offg. C.J.

1.

In these revision cases, the petitioners claim exemption from sales tax on the ground that they purchased the skins and hides from unlicensed dealers and as such the transaction comes within the purview of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Bari & Co. (1958 9 S.T.C. 231; 1958 A.L.T. 185). The department assessed the petitioners on the basis of the total turnover. When appeals were pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the department, the Full Bench rendered the judgment referred to above. On the strength of that judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees who could prove that the purchases in question were made by them from unlicensed dealers. As regards the petitioners in these cases, their claims were disallowed as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the petitioners had not established that the purchases were made from unlicensed dealers. No exception can be taken to the decision of the Tribunal. It is for a person who claims exemption to prove the circumstances which warrant the exemption. Consequently, he has to make out that the skins and hides in question were bought from persons who did not hold any licences. There is no presumption that every dealer in hides and skins is an unlicensed dealer. That being the case, unless he succeeds in proving that the persons from whom he purchased the skins and hides had no licences, he cannot claim the exemption.

2.

In the result, the orders under appeal are confirmed and these petitions are dismissed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 50 in each petition.