Second sale exemption for rice upheld where documentary evidence and witness testimony made remand unnecessary.

An appellate remand was held unwarranted where the existing record already contained reliable evidence, including the registered dealer's testimony, bills and account books, establishing sales of rice to the petitioners. A prior contradictory statement made behind the petitioners' back could not, by itself, displace that later evidence when it was given before the assessing authority in their presence and supported by contemporaneous documents. On that footing, the Court treated the dealer's sale as the first sale and the petitioners' subsequent intra-State sales as second sales exempt from tax. The remand was set aside and the exemption claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal was justified when the record already contained sufficient evidence on the claim for exemption from sales tax. (ii) Whether the sales of rice purchased by the petitioners from the registered dealer were second sales exempt from tax.

Issue (i): Whether the order of remand passed by the Appellate Tribunal was justified when the record already contained sufficient evidence on the claim for exemption from sales tax.

Analysis: The evidence of the registered dealer, supported by the bills issued by him and the entries in the relevant account books, showed that rice was actually sold to the petitioners. A prior contradictory statement made by him behind the back of the petitioners could not, by itself, justify rejection of his later evidence, especially when that later version was given before the assessing authority in the presence of the petitioners and was corroborated by documentary material. Where the best available evidence is already on record, a remand for further proof serves no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The remand was unwarranted and was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the sales of rice purchased by the petitioners from the registered dealer were second sales exempt from tax.

Analysis: On the evidence accepted by the Court, the dealer had in fact sold rice to the petitioners under the bills issued by him. That transaction constituted the taxable first sale in the hands of the dealer, and the subsequent sales made by the petitioners within the State were second sales. The petitioners had therefore discharged the burden of establishing their entitlement to exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the claimed exemption, and the sales were not liable as first sales.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the orders of remand were set aside, and the assessments could not stand in the form made against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate remand is unwarranted where the existing record contains sufficient reliable evidence for decision, and a witness's earlier contradictory statement cannot be the sole basis for rejecting later testimony when that testimony is corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence.

---