Second-sale exemption requires proof of prior taxation, and revisional penalty restoration was upheld for unaccounted sales.

A dealer claiming second-sale exemption under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act had to prove that the goods had already suffered tax and that the disputed sales were not liable to tax. Because 83 sale bills were not entered in the books and no cogent evidence supported the second-sale claim, the burden of proof under the Act was not discharged. Rule 32(13) also required supporting certification for a second-seller claim, which was not shown. On that basis, revisional interference to restore the original penalty was justified, and the reduction of penalty was treated as erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to claim that the disputed cement sales were second sales not liable to tax, and whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking revisional power to restore the penalty imposed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The disputed turnover arose from 83 sale bills not entered in the books of account. The assessee failed to produce cogent evidence to establish that the goods had already suffered tax or that the transactions were not liable to tax. Under section 12 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, the burden of proving non-liability to tax lay on the dealer. Rule 32(13) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 also required supporting certification where a dealer claimed to be a second seller. The Court accepted the Commissioner's reliance on the records of the Executive Engineer and held that the unaccounted purchases and sales could not be treated as second sales without proof. The revisional interference under section 37 was therefore justified, as the Deputy Commissioner's reduction of penalty was erroneous.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim of second-sale status was rejected, and the Commissioner's order restoring the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the revisional order sustaining the penalty remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer claiming second-sale exemption cannot prove that the goods had already suffered tax, the burden under the sales tax law is not discharged and revisional interference restoring the original penalty is sustainable.

---