Rebuttable presumption in commercial tax penalty matters requires consideration of dealer's rebuttal evidence before sustaining penalty.

Section 43(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 creates only a rebuttable presumption of facilitation of evasion when the prescribed invoice statement is not made, because the words "unless the contrary is proved by him" permit rebuttal. The dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity to disprove the presumption, and the authority must consider the evidence produced for that purpose before imposing or sustaining penalty. Rebuttal material, including certificates from purchasing dealers, is relevant and cannot be ignored when the revisional authority assesses whether the penalty is justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presumption under section 43(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 is rebuttable and whether the revisional authority was bound to consider the material produced by the dealer to rebut that presumption before affirming the penalty.

Analysis: Section 43(3) requires the issuing dealer to make the prescribed statement in the invoice, and rule 66(2) requires affixation of the prescribed stamp. Section 43(6) creates a presumption of facilitation of evasion where the prescribed statement is not made, but the language "unless the contrary is proved by him" shows that the presumption is not conclusive. The dealer must therefore be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut the presumption, and the authority must examine the evidence produced for that purpose before imposing or sustaining penalty. The material filed by the dealer before the revisional authority, including certificates from purchasing dealers, was relevant rebuttal evidence and could not be ignored.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 43(6) is rebuttable, and the revisional authority erred in not considering the rebuttal material before affirming the penalty.

---