Transport records alone did not prove dealer status under sales tax law; transportation activity rebutted the adverse presumption.

Survey entries in a consignment note book, standing alone, did not establish that a transport operator had engaged in purchase and sale business so as to fall within the definition of a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The material showed only dealer names and freight particulars; no stock of goods was found and no independent enquiry was made from the named dealers. The presumption under section 12-A was rebuttable, and the assessee's evidence of transportation activity sufficiently discharged the initial burden. The record therefore did not prove any sale or purchase, and the Tribunal was correct in affirming that the assessee was not liable as a dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the material found in survey and the entries in the consignment note book, the assessee carrying on transportation business could be treated as a dealer liable to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the burden under section 12-A was discharged.

Analysis: The survey material consisted only of the names of dealers and freight particulars in the consignment note book. No stock of goods was found and no independent enquiry was made from the named dealers. The burden under section 12-A required explanation of adverse material, but the presumption arising from such material was rebuttable. On the facts, the entries by themselves did not justify an adverse inference that the assessee had carried on purchase and sale business. The assessee's material showing transportation activity was sufficient to discharge the initial burden, and the record did not establish any sale or purchase so as to bring the assessee within the definition of dealer.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to be treated as a dealer, and the Tribunal committed no error of law in affirming the appellate order.

---