Stock transfers between own premises are not sales, and turnover additions need proof, not assumption.

Transfer of stock between two business premises of the same proprietor, even if held under different excise licences, is not a sale because a sale requires transfer between different persons; the stock movement was therefore not liable to tax as sales turnover. An addition to taxable turnover for alleged sales of food and aerated waters cannot be sustained on mere assumption from the licence terms without factual, circumstantial, or other evidentiary support; the proposed turnover addition was accordingly unjustified. The stated ratio is that intra-proprietor transfers are stock transfers, and turnover additions require proof rather than conjecture.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transfer of stock between two business premises of the same proprietor, held under different excise licences, could be treated as a sale liable to tax. (ii) Whether an addition to taxable turnover towards alleged sale of food and aerated waters could be sustained in the absence of proof.

Issue (i): Whether transfer of stock between two business premises of the same proprietor, held under different excise licences, could be treated as a sale liable to tax.

Analysis: The proprietor was the common owner of both establishments. A sale presupposes transfer between different persons, whereas transfer by the same person from one business unit treated as the head office to another treated as a branch is only a stock transfer. The mere fact that different licences were held for the two premises did not change the character of the transaction into a sale.

Conclusion: The transfer could not be treated as a sale, and the revision on that basis was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition to taxable turnover towards alleged sale of food and aerated waters could be sustained in the absence of proof.

Analysis: The addition rested only on an assumption that, because the licence contemplated supply of meals and refreshments, such sales must have occurred. No factual material or circumstantial evidence supported the inference that food or aerated waters were in fact sold or that turnover of the stated amount had escaped assessment. An drawn only from the terms of the licence could not justify revisional addition.

Conclusion: The addition towards food and aerated water turnover was not justified and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was annulled and the assessment position accepted by the appellate authority was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction between business premises of the same person is not a sale, and a turnover addition cannot be sustained on mere assumption without evidentiary basis.

---