Burden of proof in transport breach cases distinguishes penalty from turnover assessment under tax law

Departmental circulars did not invalidate seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings because the earlier circular required FIR registration in tax-evasion cases and did not bar continuation of proceedings, while later circulars could not govern past action. On penalty for alleged violation of transport requirements, the department had to affirmatively prove the statutory breach and failed to do so, so penalty was not justified. For turnover assessment, the dealer failed to prove that the goods were tax-paid local purchases, and the missing goods found on survey after release supported an inference of sale, so assessment of turnover was sustained. The decision distinguishes the burden of proof for penalty from that for sales tax assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental circulars could invalidate the seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings; (ii) whether the goods were proved to have been imported in violation of the statutory transport requirements so as to justify penalty, and whether the turnover could be assessed as sale of missing goods.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental circulars could invalidate the seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The circular relied upon as preceding the proceedings only required registration of an FIR where goods were seized for evasion of tax and did not prohibit continuation of seizure, assessment, or penalty proceedings. The other circulars were issued after the relevant proceedings and could not govern them. Since the FIR had in fact been registered in accordance with the earlier circular, no interference was warranted on this ground.

Conclusion: The circulars did not bar the proceedings, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were proved to have been imported in violation of the statutory transport requirements so as to justify penalty, and whether the turnover could be assessed as sale of missing goods.

Analysis: The finding that the goods were imported merely because the bags bore marks of manufacturers from outside the State was held to be unsustainable. The burden to establish a violation of the transport requirement and consequent penalty lay on the department, and that burden was not discharged. At the same time, the dealer failed to establish that the goods were tax-paid purchases within the State. The subsequent survey showed the goods missing from the premises after release, which supported an inference of sale and justified assessment of turnover. The distinction between the burden for penalty and the burden for sales tax assessment was applied to separate the two liabilities.

Conclusion: Penalty was not justified and was set aside, but the assessment of turnover was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision against penalty succeeded, while the revision against assessment failed, resulting in partial relief to the dealer with the tax assessment upheld and the penalty annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty for violation of transport requirements, the department must affirmatively prove the statutory breach; however, for assessment of turnover, the dealer bears the burden of proving that the goods were tax-paid purchases within the State.

---