Burden of proof for inter-State purchases turns on proof of ex-U.P. principals, purchase instructions, dispatch and payment nexus.

A dealer claiming that purchases were made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals, and were therefore inter-State purchases, must affirmatively prove the existence of those principals and the factual link between purchase instructions, dispatch of goods and payment. The text notes that supporting evidence such as orders, account entries, destination of goods and mode of payment is necessary, and that doubtful existence of the principals undermines the claim at its foundation. On that basis, the remand for inquiry into alleged draft payments and the principals' existence was treated as justified, and no basis was shown to interfere with the Tribunal's direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand by the Tribunal for inquiry into the alleged draft payments and the existence of ex-U.P. principals was justified, and whether the dealer had discharged the burden of proving that the purchases were inter-State purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals.

Analysis: The claim that the purchases were made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals had to be established by the dealer through necessary evidence, including proof of the principals' existence, supporting orders or instructions, account entries, dispatch of goods to the principals' destinations, and the mode of payment. Where the existence of the ex-U.P. principals itself is doubtful, the foundation of the claim that the purchases were in the course of inter-State trade fails. The direction to examine the drafts was also relevant because payment through draft formed part of the factual matrix requiring verification.

Conclusion: The remand was justified and the dealer had not shown any basis to interfere with the Tribunal's direction.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the assessee failed to establish the factual predicates necessary to exclude the purchases from tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer claiming that purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals and were therefore inter-State purchases must affirmatively prove the existence of such principals and the nexus between the purchase instructions, dispatch of goods, and payment; absent such proof, the taxability finding and a remand for verification are sustainable.

---