Second-sale exemption fails where supporting bills carry false registration particulars and sellers are not proved to exist.

A dealer claiming second-sale exemption had to affirmatively prove that the turnover was not liable as a first sale under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Sale bills, way bills and cheque particulars were insufficient because the registration numbers in the documents did not belong to the alleged sellers during the relevant year, and the sellers were not shown to be real or identifiable dealers. The Tribunal's verification-based finding that the consignors were not established was upheld, since the way bills carried the same false particulars and did not cure the evidentiary defect. The exemption claim was therefore disallowed to the extent rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption on the ground that the turnover represented second sales of groundnut oil, and whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim where the bills and way bills contained false registration particulars and no satisfactory proof of the existence of the alleged sellers was produced.

Analysis: The burden under Section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 lay on the dealer to prove that the sale was not liable to tax as a first sale. The assessee relied on sale bills, way bills and cheque particulars, but the registration numbers shown in the bills did not belong to the alleged sellers during the relevant year. The Tribunal's finding that the stated sellers were not real and identifiable dealers was based on verification of the records. The way bills did not cure the defect because they suffered from the same false registration particulars and did not establish the existence of the consignors. The assessee had not produced convincing material before the authorities to show that the alleged sellers actually existed, and the challenge was directed only to the sufficiency of evidence, which did not justify interference in revision.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement to second-sale exemption, and the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim to the extent rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim for second-sale exemption, the dealer must affirmatively prove that the transaction was not the first sale, and false registration particulars in the supporting documents justify rejection of the exemption claim where the existence of the alleged sellers is not otherwise established.

---