Inclusive-of-tax bill endorsements can be prima facie evidence of tax collection unless the dealer rebuts the presumption.

Where the statute places on the dealer the burden of proving non-collection of sales tax during the protective period, an inclusive-of-tax endorsement in the bill can constitute prima facie evidence that tax was collected. The sufficiency of rebuttal is a factual question to be decided on the record in each case, and there is no rigid rule that collection must be separately shown in the account books. In the absence of contrary material, the dealer's denial fails, the burden remains undischarged, and tax collection may be inferred from the bill endorsement.

---

---

Issues: Whether an endorsement in the bill that the price charged was inclusive of tax constituted prima facie proof that the dealer had collected sales tax, and whether the dealer had discharged the burden under the protective-period provision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the burden on the dealer to prove that no tax had been collected during the relevant period. The question whether that burden was discharged was one of fact, to be decided on the materials in each case, and it could not be reduced to a fixed rule that collection must be reflected separately in the account books. The endorsement in the bills that the price was inclusive of tax was treated as prima facie proof against the dealer's stand, and in the absence of material to rebut that inference, the dealer had to be treated as having collected the tax.

Conclusion: The dealer failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the endorsement in the bills was sufficient to sustain the finding of tax collection.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary and appellate findings were unsustainable, and the tax liability was restored, with only the exempt turnover retained outside the levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute places the burden on the dealer to prove non-collection of tax, an inclusive-of-tax endorsement in the bill may operate as prima facie evidence of collection unless rebutted by contrary material; the sufficiency of proof is a question of fact, not a rigid rule of law.

---