Burden of proof for suppressed turnover rests on the dealer, while revisional courts cannot reappraise turnover evidence.

Where suppressed turnover is found and accounts are incomplete, the burden of proving the source and character of the enhanced turnover lies on the dealer under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because those facts are specially within the assessee's knowledge; the dealer failed to discharge that burden. Questions limited to the sufficiency and appreciation of evidence on the quantum of turnover are factual and do not justify revisional interference under section 11 of the Act, so the Tribunal's findings on suppression and turnover were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a case of suppressed turnover and incomplete accounts, the burden of proving the nature of the enhanced turnover lay on the dealer under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the High Court could in revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act interfere with the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence on the quantum of turnover.

Issue (i): Whether, in a case of suppressed turnover and incomplete accounts, the burden of proving the nature of the enhanced turnover lay on the dealer under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The assessment was made on best judgment basis because the dealer had not maintained cash book, ledger, stock register or purchase register. The Tribunal had recorded findings of substantial suppression of sales on the basis of survey material and enquiries. In such circumstances, facts relating to the source and character of the enhanced turnover were specially within the knowledge of the assessee, attracting section 12-A. The dealer therefore had to discharge the burden of proof, and the cited precedent on single-point taxation was held distinguishable because it did not involve a recorded finding of suppression.

Conclusion: The burden of proof lay on the dealer, and the dealer failed to discharge it.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could in revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act interfere with the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence on the quantum of turnover.

Analysis: The department's challenge related only to the sufficiency and appraisal of evidence supporting the reduction of turnover. Such questions fall within factual appreciation and do not furnish a ground for interference in revision under section 11. The revisional court could not reassess the adequacy of material or substitute its own view on evidence.

Conclusion: No revisional interference was permissible on this ground, and the department's revisions failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings on suppression and turnover remained undisturbed, and no revisional relief was granted to either side.

Ratio Decidendi: Where suppressed turnover is found and the relevant facts are specially within the assessee's knowledge, the burden of proof lies on the assessee under section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act; questions confined to sufficiency or appreciation of evidence are not open to interference in revision under section 11 of that Act.

---