Burden of proving second sale exemption failed where trade documents were unreliable and factual findings were left undisturbed.

Where the statute places the burden on the dealer to prove that a transaction is not taxable or qualifies for exemption, the assessee must establish that the disputed turnover represented second sales. The sale bills and way bills were rejected as unreliable because the registration numbers did not match the named dealers for the relevant period, and check-post stamps did not prove the genuineness of the consignors. On those facts, the claimed second sale was not proved, and the revisional court was not required to interfere with the Tribunal's factual finding or order a fresh enquiry when proper material had not been produced despite opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving that the disputed turnover represented second sales and not first sales so as to claim exemption; and whether the revisional court should interfere or remit the matter for further enquiry on the strength of the way bills and other documents.

Analysis: Under section 7-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the burden lay on the dealer to prove that the sale or purchase was not liable to tax or was liable at a reduced rate. Since groundnut oil was taxable at the first sale point, the assessee had to establish that the goods sold by it after refining were those purchased from another dealer. The sale bills were found unreliable because the registration numbers shown in them did not belong to the named dealers during the relevant year. The way bills also suffered from the same defect, and the fact that they bore check-post stamps did not establish the existence or genuineness of the consignors. The question whether the dealers actually existed was one of fact, and the revisional court would not interfere with the Tribunal's factual finding or direct a fresh enquiry when the assessee had ample opportunity to produce proper material but failed to do so.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to discharge the statutory burden, and no interference or remand was called for.

Final Conclusion: The revision was not sustainable because the adverse finding on exemption rested on a factual appreciation of unreliable documents and a failure to prove the claimed second sale.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute places the burden on the dealer to prove non-liability to tax, unsupported or false trade documents do not establish second sale, and the revisional court will not disturb concurrent factual findings merely to permit further enquiry.

---