Expiry of record-retention period does not excuse non-production of documents needed to prove a tax deduction claim.

A dealer's duty under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was held to be only to preserve prescribed records for the statutory period, not to treat expiry of that period as a ground to withhold evidence needed to support a deduction claim. Where documents and declarations were not produced during pending original assessment proceedings, the assessee still bore the burden of proving entitlement to deduction, and the taxing authority could insist on production on demand. The court also noted that assessment proceedings begin with filing of returns and that records should ordinarily be retained until the assessment, appeal, or revision arising from it is finally concluded. The deduction claim was therefore not automatically acceptable merely because the retention period had expired.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer, after the expiry of the statutory period for preserving books and documents, can insist that the sales tax authorities must accept a deduction claim under section 6(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, notwithstanding failure to produce the prescribed certificates and supporting records during the original assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme imposed a duty to preserve specified documents only for the prescribed period. Rule 41-A required preservation for three years after the expiry of the year to which the documents related, while section 12A(3) separately prescribed a minimum preservation period for certain dealers. The Court held that these provisions created a duty to retain records for the stated period, but did not create a converse obligation to destroy them thereafter. If a dealer voluntarily destroyed records after the statutory period and before completion of the assessment proceedings, the dealer had to bear the consequence of failing to produce the evidence required to support the deduction claim. The burden remained on the assessee to establish entitlement to deduction, and rule 26(2) specifically required production of the relevant documents on demand. The Court further held that for original assessment proceedings, the proceedings commence when the returns are filed, and the dealer should normally preserve evidence until those proceedings, including appeal or revision arising therefrom, are finally concluded.

Conclusion: The demand for production of the declarations and supporting documents could not be negatived on the ground that the statutory preservation period had expired, and the deduction claim for the relevant earlier period was not automatically entitled to acceptance. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by holding that expiry of the statutory retention period does not, by itself, protect a dealer from the consequences of non-production of documents needed to substantiate a deduction claim in original assessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer's duty is only to preserve prescribed records for the statutory period; once that period expires, there is no legal right to have a deduction accepted without producing the evidence required by the taxing statute during pending original assessment proceedings, and the burden of proving entitlement to deduction remains on the assessee.

---