Article 286 exemption and assessment estimates depend on proof, evidence, and fair opportunity; some additions were remitted.

Article 286(1)(a) exemption applies only where the sale or purchase results in actual delivery of the goods in another State for consumption there, and the claimant must prove that factual basis; on the groundnut kernel turnover, the exemption failed for want of evidence. Transactions involving railway receipts for goods in transit may raise inter-State issues, but taxability depends on proof of delivery outside the State as a direct result of the transaction, so that turnover was remitted for fresh evidence and reconsideration. An estimated gross-profit addition could not stand without disclosed material and a fair opportunity to meet the estimate, so it was set aside. The addition based on boat extracts was sustained because no rebuttal evidence was produced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the purchase of groundnut kernel within the State and its export to Calcutta was exempt from tax under Article 286 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the purchase of railway receipts relating to groundnuts consigned to Calcutta was exempt from tax under Article 286 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the addition made on account of estimated gross profit was arbitrary and liable to be set aside; (iv) whether the addition made on the basis of alleged suppressions shown by boat extracts was liable to be excluded.

Issue (i): whether the purchase of groundnut kernel within the State and its export to Calcutta was exempt from tax under Article 286 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The exemption under Article 286(1)(a) read with the Explanation applies only when the sale or purchase has resulted in actual delivery of the goods in another State for consumption there. The party claiming the exemption had to place material showing that the transaction satisfied that test. In the absence of evidence that the groundnut kernel was delivered outside the State as a direct result of the sale or purchase for consumption in Calcutta, the claim to exemption could not succeed.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption on this turnover failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the purchase of railway receipts relating to groundnuts consigned to Calcutta was exempt from tax under Article 286 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A transaction in goods in transit may involve inter-State elements. Where the receipts were purchased while the goods were in transit and the goods were deliverable outside the State, the decisive question remained whether the delivery outside the State was the direct result of the sale or purchase and whether the goods were intended for consumption there. As that factual foundation had not been established, the matter required an opportunity to adduce evidence on the point.

Conclusion: The question of taxability on this turnover was remitted for fresh consideration and was in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): whether the addition made on account of estimated gross profit was arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Analysis: An estimate of turnover or profit must rest on material and the assessee must have an opportunity to meet the basis of the estimate. The orders under challenge did not disclose the material on which the gross-profit rate was fixed, and the assessment was therefore not shown to be founded on a proper inquiry or on relevant evidence. The matter was required to be reconsidered with an opportunity to place relevant material.

Conclusion: The addition for estimated gross profit was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether the addition made on the basis of alleged suppressions shown by boat extracts was liable to be excluded.

Analysis: The goods were shown as consigned to the assessee's godown and in the assessee's name, but no evidence was produced to connect the boat extracts with any return of the goods to the owners. In the absence of proof rebutting the inference that the stocks were received and sold by the assessee, the assessing authority was justified in treating the turnover as taxable.

Conclusion: The addition on this account was upheld and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part. The matter was remitted for evidence and reconsideration on the railway-receipt turnover and the gross-profit estimate, while the challenge to the other additions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under Article 286(1)(a) depends on proof that the sale or purchase resulted in actual delivery in another State as a direct result of the transaction for consumption there, and an estimated turnover addition cannot stand without relevant material and a fair opportunity to the assessee to meet the basis of the estimate.

---