Documentary evidence and rebuttal failure sustained tax liability on disputed goods turnover in a clandestine import dispute.

Revenue-backed documentary material, including import papers, transport details and correspondence, was treated as sufficient to support tax liability on disputed vanaspati ghee turnover, and the fresh assessment was upheld because the earlier remand directions on disclosure and opportunity had been complied with. The complaint of denial of natural justice therefore failed. The assessing authority was entitled under Rule 48(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 to assess on the basis of available evidence, including where clandestine import was alleged and direct evidence was lacking. The assessee did not rebut the material or prove misuse of the import licence by an agent, so the findings were not shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the levy of commercial tax, entry tax and penalty on the disputed turnover of vanaspati ghee was sustainable, and whether the assessment was vitiated for want of disclosure of material or by improper shifting of the burden of proof.

Analysis: The material collected by the Revenue, including import documents, transport details, correspondence and supporting records, was relied on by the assessing and revisional authorities to hold that the petitioner had imported and sold the disputed goods in Madhya Pradesh. The earlier remand had directed disclosure of the material and grant of opportunity, and the fresh assessment was made after complying with that direction, so the complaint of denial of natural justice was not accepted. Under Rule 48(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Kar Adhiniyam, 1995, the assessing authority may assess the dealer on the basis of the objection, the evidence adduced and such other evidence as is available. In a case involving alleged clandestine import, direct evidence may not always be available. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence to support the plea that the import licence had been misused by an agent, and the factual findings recorded by the authorities were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The levy of commercial tax and entry tax on the disputed turnover was upheld, and the challenge to the assessment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, where the Revenue produces cogent documentary material and the assessee is given opportunity to rebut it, factual findings sustaining tax liability will not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by material.

---