Burden of proof for new machinery exemption: record evidence can satisfy the claim and make further remand unnecessary.

A unit claiming exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act must show that its plant and machinery were not previously used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. The burden lies on the claimant, but no special form or quantum of proof is prescribed. Purchase invoices and corroborating material from the bank, industries department, and assessing authority may be sufficient where they establish that the machinery was new and unused elsewhere. On that basis, repeated remand for further enquiry is unwarranted when the existing record already supports the claim and suspicion cannot replace legal proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the plant and machinery installed in the unit were not previously used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India so as to qualify as a new unit under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and whether a further remand to the Divisional Level Committee was justified.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 4A and Explanation (2A) excludes a unit using machinery already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. The burden lies on the unit claiming exemption, but the Act does not prescribe any special quantum or mode of proof. On the material on record, the assessee produced purchase invoices and supporting evidence from the bank, the industries department, and the assessing authority, all indicating that the machinery was new and had not been used elsewhere. The objections raised by the Divisional Level Committee were held to be insufficient, and the Tribunal itself recorded findings that the evidence supported the assessee's claim. In these circumstances, a further enquiry and repeated remand were unwarranted, because suspicion cannot substitute legal proof and the onus stood discharged once the available evidence established the unit's claim.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to have proved that the installed machinery was not previously used in any other unit, and the further remand was held to be illegal and unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence on record satisfactorily establishes that the installed machinery is new and not previously used or acquired for use elsewhere, the burden under Explanation (2A) to section 4A stands discharged and a further remand for enquiry is not justified merely on suspicion.

---