Burden of proving genuine purchase defeated penalty challenge where bills were doubtful and seller's identity remained unverified.

Penalty under the Sales Tax Act was upheld because the goods in transit were supported only by doubtful bills and the assessee failed to prove a genuine purchase from the alleged seller. The surrounding circumstances, including the driver's consistent version, seizure of the tanker, discrepancies in the documents, and the absence of confirmation, affidavit, or other acceptable proof from the third-party seller, justified application of the test of human probability. Once the genuineness of the transaction was in doubt, a bare bill was insufficient. The earlier decision cited was distinguishable because the seller's identity and existence themselves remained doubtful and tax payment was not proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 22A(7) of the Sales Tax Act was justified where the goods in transit were supported only by doubtful bills and the assessee failed to produce satisfactory proof of purchase from the alleged seller.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances, including the driver's consistent version, the seizure of the tanker, the mismatch in the supporting documents, and the absence of confirmation, affidavit, or other acceptable evidence from the alleged third-party seller, showed that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proving a genuine purchase from the named dealer. The Court held that the authorities were entitled to assess the matter on the test of human probability and that, although a dealer is not normally required to produce a third party's records, something more than a bare bill was necessary once the genuineness of the transaction was in doubt. The earlier decision relied upon by the assessee was held to be distinguishable because, in the present case, the identity and existence of the seller itself remained doubtful and tax payment was not proved.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly sustained, the findings of the lower authorities disclosed no illegality or perversity, and the revision petition failed.

---