Burden of proof on exemption claims sustains purchase tax, while reassessment after remand stays within limitation and interest is curtailed.

Fresh assessment after remand was held within the one-year limit under section 21(4), because the remand order was received on 30 June 1989 and the reassessment was completed on 8 June 1990. Tax on purchases of empty tins was sustained, as section 12-A placed the burden on the dealer to prove exemption or non-liability, and the assessee failed to give verifiable particulars showing intra-State purchases. Interest on the entire reassessed demand was disallowed because the tax had earlier been deposited, refunded after the earlier result, and re-imposed only after remand; monthly instalments were also granted, with interest confined to any defaulted instalment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the fresh assessment made after remand was barred by limitation under section 21(4); (ii) whether the tax on purchases of empty tins was sustainable in view of section 12-A and the assessee's failure to establish intra-State purchases; (iii) whether interest on the re-assessed tax could be levied and whether instalment relief could be granted.

Issue (i): whether the fresh assessment made after remand was barred by limitation under section 21(4).

Analysis: The remand order under section 11(8) was received by the assessing authority on June 30, 1989 and the fresh assessment was completed on June 8, 1990. The computation showed compliance within one year from receipt of the remand order, and the statutory time limit was therefore not breached.

Conclusion: The assessment was not barred by limitation and this objection failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the tax on purchases of empty tins was sustainable in view of section 12-A and the assessee's failure to establish intra-State purchases.

Analysis: Section 12-A places the burden on the dealer to prove facts specially within his knowledge and to establish circumstances supporting exemption or non-liability. The assessee did not furnish complete and verifiable particulars of the petty sellers, and the notices issued by the department could not be served or verified. In the absence of reliable proof, the assessing authority was entitled to presume that the purchases were not made from within Uttar Pradesh and were liable to tax.

Conclusion: The levy of tax was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether interest on the re-assessed tax could be levied and whether instalment relief could be granted.

Analysis: Interest was disapproved because the tax had earlier been deposited, refunded after the earlier appellate result, and then re-imposed only after remand proceedings. In the circumstances, the assessee was not to be burdened with interest on the whole re-imposed tax. The request for staggered payment was found reasonable, and monthly instalments were directed with interest confined only to any defaulted instalment.

Conclusion: Interest on the entire tax demand was disallowed, and instalment facility was granted to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of relief against interest and was otherwise dismissed on the tax liability and limitation questions, with a payment schedule directed for discharge of the tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute places the burden of proving a claim of non-liability or exemption on the assessee, failure to furnish verifiable particulars justifies a presumption against the assessee and sustainment of tax, while interest may be denied where the demand arises only after earlier reversal and remand.

---