Entry tax burden of proof: invoices lacking prescribed endorsement created a rebuttable presumption, and liability failed without Revenue rebuttal.

Invoices without the rubber-stamp endorsement required under section 7 of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 read with rule 7 of the Entry Tax Rules, 1976 were treated as material prima facie evidence that the goods had already suffered the taxable event in the hands of the selling dealer or an earlier dealer. Production of such invoices shifted the burden to the Revenue to rebut the presumption by showing that the goods had not already entered the local area. As no rebuttal material was produced, the purchaser-dealer's liability to entry tax could not be sustained, and the reassessment and revisional orders were unsustainable on the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purchaser-dealer discharged the burden of proving non-liability to entry tax by producing invoices lacking the rubber-stamp endorsement required under section 7 of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 read with rule 7 of the Entry Tax Rules, 1976.

Analysis: The absence of the prescribed endorsement on the bills was treated as material prima facie evidence that the goods had already suffered the taxable event in the hands of the selling dealer or a prior dealer. The Court applied the settled rule that production of such invoices shifts the burden to the Revenue to show that the goods had not already been subjected to entry into the local area. As no material was produced by the Revenue to rebut that prima facie position, the purchaser's liability could not be sustained on the record before the authorities.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to be fastened with entry tax on the existing material, and the reassessment and revisional orders were unsustainable.

---