Burden of proof in last-purchase taxation: purchaser's non-accountal alone does not conclusively fix liability on the seller.

Under the single-point levy and the burden rule in section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, an assessee must produce relevant accounts and primary facts to show that disputed sales were made to another dealer in the State and were not taxable as last purchases. Non-accountal by the purchasing dealer may justify reopening or further enquiry, but it is not by itself conclusive proof of fictitious transactions or liability on the selling dealer. Where the authorities relied mainly on the purchaser's omission without adequate enquiry into records, affidavits, transport particulars, bank drafts, or the assessee's accounts, the reassessment and revisional orders could not stand and the matter required fresh limited scrutiny.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment and revisional interference were justified on the basis that the purchasing dealer had not accounted for the disputed transactions, and whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the sales were not taxable as last purchases.

Analysis: Under the single-point levy and the burden provision in section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the assessee had to place the relevant accounts and primary facts before the assessing authority to establish that the disputed sales were made to another dealer in the State. Once the sale transaction is shown, liability does not automatically shift to the selling dealer merely because the purchasing dealer failed to account for the goods or pay tax. Non-accountal by the purchasing dealer may justify reopening or further enquiry, but it is not by itself conclusive proof that the assessee created fictitious transactions. The authorities relied mainly on the purchasing dealer's non-accountal and did not make adequate enquiry into the purchaser's records, the affidavits, the transport particulars, the bank drafts, or the appellants' accounts. The assessee's records were also relevant to test the claim of exemption, and a limited scrutiny of those accounts was necessary before withdrawing the exemption.

Conclusion: The reopening was not invalid, but the reassessment and revisional orders could not stand on the material then relied upon. The matter had to be remitted for fresh, limited scrutiny of the appellants' accounts and the disputed transactions.

---