Rebuttal of statutory presumption in trade tax where documentary evidence proved goods exited the State and were sold outside.

Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act creates a presumption of local sale when transit documents are not duly vacated at the exit point, but the proviso shifts the burden to the owner or person in charge to prove that the goods were actually moved out of the State. On the facts recorded, the goods were transferred to another vehicle after breakdown of the original conveyance, exited through the border check-post, and the sale documents matched the generators' engine numbers. Those findings rebutted the statutory presumption, so the penalty based on presumed intra-State sale was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent discharged the statutory onus under the proviso to section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by proving that the goods which entered the State were subsequently moved out of the State and sold elsewhere, so as to defeat the presumption of sale within the State.

Analysis: Section 28B creates a presumption that goods carried through the State are sold within the State if the prescribed transit authorization is not duly vacated at the exit point. The proviso shifts the burden to the owner or person in charge where the goods are, after entry, transported of the State by another vehicle or conveyance. The factual findings recorded by the appellate authority and the Tribunal showed that the generators were moved from the entry check-post, the original vehicle broke down, the goods were transferred to another vehicle, they passed out through the Ghaziabad border, and the sale documents matched the engine numbers of the very generators. No effective material was produced to rebut those findings.

Conclusion: The respondent successfully discharged the burden under the proviso to section 28B and the statutory presumption stood rebutted. The penalty based on presumed intra-State sale was therefore not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the concurrent factual findings established actual exit of the goods from the State and their sale outside the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute places the burden on the owner or person in charge to prove that goods entering the State were actually taken of it, that burden is discharged by credible documentary and factual evidence showing actual exit and out-of-State sale, thereby rebutting the presumption of local sale.

---