Escaped turnover proof requires more than allotment information; additional evidence must be open to rebuttal before reliance.

In proceedings for escaped turnover under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, allotment information about coal was not enough by itself to justify an addition; the Revenue had to prove actual import or purchase, and further inquiry was required before making the assessment addition. A certificate filed for the first time before the first appellate authority could not be relied on without giving the assessing authority an opportunity to rebut it, as additional evidence must be tested fairly. The assessment was therefore sent back for fresh adjudication with proper inquiry and consideration of the additional evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, mere information regarding coal allotment was sufficient to sustain an addition towards escaped turnover without further inquiry by the Revenue; (ii) Whether the certificate produced before the first appellate authority could be relied upon without giving the assessing authority an opportunity to rebut it under section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, mere information regarding coal allotment was sufficient to sustain an addition towards escaped turnover without further inquiry by the Revenue.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated on the basis of allotment information alone. The assessee denied import and purchase of coal against the allotment. The Court held that, in such proceedings, the burden lies on the Revenue to establish escaped turnover and that allotment information by itself does not prove actual purchase or import. Further inquiry by the assessing authority was necessary before making the addition.

Conclusion: The addition based only on allotment information could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate produced before the first appellate authority could be relied upon without giving the assessing authority an opportunity to rebut it under section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The District Supply Officer's certificate was filed for the first time before the first appellate authority. The Court noted that when additional evidence is admitted, the opposite side must be given an opportunity of rebuttal. Since no such opportunity was given, the appellate finding based solely on that certificate could not be treated as final.

Conclusion: The certificate could not be acted upon without affording rebuttal opportunity; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee to the extent that the matter required reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the assessment matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after appropriate inquiry and consideration of the additional evidence in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for escaped turnover under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the Revenue must prove actual escaped turnover and cannot rely merely on allotment information; where additional evidence is admitted, the opposite party must be given a fair opportunity to rebut it.

---