Tax rebate on plywood sales denied where prior-point tax was not proved; turnover addition upheld on the dealer's accounts.

Plywood sales under the Sixth Schedule are taxable at every point of sale, but a dealer claiming rebate under section 5(3) read with the second proviso to Explanation II must prove that tax was already paid at the immediately preceding point. Where sale bills do not separately show prior-point tax and the dealer fails to produce reliable proof of opening stock, closing stock, and tax payment at the earlier stage, the statutory formula and Explanation II apply, and the rebate claim fails. On the turnover issue, the revisional authority was justified in adding turnover where the dealer's own accounts did not satisfactorily show that the amount had already suffered tax or was otherwise exempt. The revised assessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dealer was entitled to tax rebate under section 5(3) read with the second proviso to Explanation II of the Sixth Schedule in respect of plywood sales. (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in adding the turnover of Rs. 5,57,623 to the assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the dealer was entitled to tax rebate under section 5(3) read with the second proviso to Explanation II of the Sixth Schedule in respect of plywood sales.

Analysis: Plywood is covered by the Sixth Schedule and is liable to tax at every point of sale. The second proviso permits deduction of tax already paid at the immediately preceding point of sale, but the dealer must establish the factual basis for such deduction. Where the sale bill does not separately show tax at the preceding point, or where the dealer fails to produce reliable proof of the opening stock, closing stock, and tax paid at the prior point, Explanation II and the formula prescribed therein become relevant. The burden to justify the claimed rebate lies on the dealer, and that burden was not discharged on the record.

Conclusion: The dealer was not entitled to the claimed rebate. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in adding the turnover of Rs. 5,57,623 to the assessment.

Analysis: The dealer's own figures showed that the disclosed sales exceeded the assessed turnover only after exclusion of the amount added back. In the absence of satisfactory material showing that the amount had already suffered tax or was otherwise not liable to tax, the revisional authority's addition was supported by the accounts and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The addition of turnover was justified. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed on both the rebate claim and the turnover addition, and the assessments as revised were sustained.

---