Last purchase tax on unmilled paddy depends on proof of taxable status, not mere closing stock disclosure.

Under a levy confined to the point of last purchase, unmilled paddy remaining in stock could not be taxed merely because it was on hand at the close of the period or because the statute was later repealed. Taxability depended on proof that the goods had in fact acquired the character of last purchase within the relevant period, and revenue concerns could not replace that requirement. The dealer's disclosure of the stock in the return, supported by account books and the stock register, discharged the statutory burden, as there was no finding that the disclosure was false or that the stock did not exist. The assessment and revisional orders were quashed, with liberty for fresh assessment according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether unmilled paddy lying in stock could be treated as a last purchase and brought to tax under the Assam Purchase Tax Act, 1967; (ii) whether the dealer had discharged the burden of proving that the purchase was not the last purchase in the State.

Issue (i): whether unmilled paddy lying in stock could be treated as a last purchase and brought to tax under the Assam Purchase Tax Act, 1967.

Analysis: Section 3(2) levies tax only at the point of last purchase of taxable goods in the State. Stock remaining unmilled does not, by itself, acquire the character of last purchase merely because the Act was subsequently repealed or because the goods would otherwise escape assessment. Taxability depends on whether the goods had in fact become the last purchase within the relevant period, and not on revenue considerations or a presumed liability arising from closing stock.

Conclusion: The unmilled paddy in stock could not be assessed as taxable unless it had acquired the character of last purchase, and the assessment on that basis was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the dealer had discharged the burden of proving that the purchase was not the last purchase in the State.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 3(2) places the burden on the dealer only when a claim is made that a purchase was not the last purchase. The dealer disclosed the unmilled stock in the return and produced the account books and stock register. There was no finding that the disclosure was false or that the stock did not exist, so the burden stood discharged.

Conclusion: The dealer had discharged the burden of proof, and the taxing authorities were not justified in treating the disclosed stock as taxable last purchase.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and revisional orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed, with liberty to the authority to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a levy confined to the point of last purchase, unmilled stock cannot be taxed merely because it remains on hand at the close of the period; taxability depends on proof that the goods have acquired the character of last purchase, and a truthful disclosure of such stock may satisfy the statutory burden placed on the dealer.

---