Rebuttable statutory presumption on transit passes requires independent scrutiny of evidence before sustaining an assessment.

Non-surrender of transit passes under section 46(15)(d) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 gave rise to a statutory presumption that the goods were sold within Assam, but the presumption was rebuttable and not conclusive. The revisional authority was required to examine credible documentary material offered to show that the vehicles had crossed Assam and the goods had been delivered and sold in Mizoram. By treating the presumption as absolute and failing to assess the probative value of the documents produced, including materials from the Mizoram taxing authority, the authority acted on an erroneous legal footing. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory presumption arising from non-surrender of transit passes under section 46(15)(d) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was rebuttable and whether the revisional authority was bound to examine the documentary evidence produced to displace that presumption.

Analysis: The non-surrender of the transit passes within the prescribed time attracted the statutory presumption that the goods had been sold within Assam. That presumption, however, was not conclusive. It could be displaced by reliable evidence showing that the vehicles had in fact crossed Assam and been delivered and sold in Mizoram. The materials produced by the petitioner, though containing some inconsistencies, included documents from the Mizoram taxing authority and could not be ignored outright. The revisional authority failed to scrutinise those materials or independently assess their probative value, and proceeded on the erroneous footing that the presumption was absolute and incapable of rebuttal.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 46(15)(d) was rebuttable, and the revisional authority erred in not considering the evidence produced by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained partial relief, as the adverse revisional order was annulled and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on the existing record in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory presumption intended to prevent tax evasion is rebuttable, and the authority must independently examine credible evidence produced to displace it before sustaining an assessment.

---