DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) An order dated June 30, 2016 passed by the revisional authority is under challenge in the present writ petition on two grounds. On one ground, the petitioners claim to have received C forms subsequent to the impugned order. They seek one opportunity for adjudicating the subsequent C forms. The other ground is the disallowance of the H forms.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, the revisional authority ought to have taken into consideration the fact that, the burden of proof of establishing that the form H submitted for assessment was correct, lay on the department rather than on the assessee. In support of such contention he relies upon 1999 (113) STC 49 (K.G. Industries v. Sales Tax Officer and Ors.) , a judgment and order dated August 28, 2015 (Swastik Industrial Powerline Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade and Taxes, Delhi) of the Delhi High Court, 2004 (138) STC 383 (Rajasthan Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer Assessment Wing and Ors.) and judgment and order dated February 10, 2017 of the Calcutta High Court passed in W.P. No. 2667(W) of 2017 (M/s. Industrial Appliances and Technologies and Anr. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, West Bengal and Ors.) .
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, the petitioners claim to be the last vendor of the goods exported. He refers to the various provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 particularly Section 5 thereof. According to him, the petitioners are required to complete the link in terms of provisions of Section 5 for it to claim the exemptions. In the present case, the petitioners did not submit appropriate materials before the assessing authority to complete the link. Since the form H submitted was inchoate and incapable of being understood, the claim was disallowed. The burden of proof lies on the assessee. He relies upon 2010 (9) SCC 524 (State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.) in support of his contentions.;