Rebuttable transit presumption limits tax liability when documents are withheld and criminal proceedings remain pending.

Presumptive tax liability under the transit-presumption scheme remains rebuttable and cannot be sustained without a fair opportunity to produce supporting records. The document states that, where alleged misappropriation of goods is the subject of a pending criminal trial, fastening liability on the transporter may be premature until responsibility is clarified. It also notes that an assessment based on gunny bags in transit cannot stand if the underlying entry check-post documents are not furnished, because the chance to rebut the presumption would be ineffective. The assessments were therefore set aside to the stated extent, with fresh consideration left open after the relevant materials and subsequent events are taken into account.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tax liability could be sustained on the transporter under the presumptive provisions for the two missing truckloads of sheet rubber when the criminal trial concerning alleged misappropriation was still pending; (ii) Whether the assessment relating to the gunny bags carried in truck No. AP-16/U 6287 could stand without furnishing the underlying entry check-post documents and giving an effective opportunity to rebut the presumption.

Issue (i): Whether tax liability could be sustained on the transporter under the presumptive provisions for the two missing truckloads of sheet rubber when the criminal trial concerning alleged misappropriation was still pending.

Analysis: The presumptive levy under Section 76(6) and Section 76(7) rests on a rebuttable presumption that goods brought into the State were sold within the State if proof of exit through the check-post is not produced. That presumption can be displaced by cogent material. Here, the missing trucks were the subject of an FIR and a criminal trial concerning alleged misappropriation of the goods. In such circumstances, fastening tax liability on the transporter before the criminal proceedings conclude would be premature, because the person actually responsible may yet be determined in the trial.

Conclusion: The assessment on the transporter for the two missing truckloads of sheet rubber could not be sustained at this stage and was set aside, with liberty to reconsider after the outcome of the criminal case.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment relating to the gunny bags carried in truck No. AP-16/U 6287 could stand without furnishing the underlying entry check-post documents and giving an effective opportunity to rebut the presumption.

Analysis: A rebuttable presumption can be met only through a fair and effective opportunity to produce material showing that the actual fact is not as presumed. Since the transporter disputed any connection with the truck and the goods, the authorities were required to furnish the documents on the basis of which the transit permit was issued at the entry check-post. Without those materials, the opportunity to rebut the presumption would be illusory and contrary to fairness in quasi-judicial assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment relating to the gunny bags was also set aside to enable supply of the relevant documents and a fresh decision after effective rebuttal opportunity.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part, the impugned assessments were quashed to the stated extent, and the matter was left open for fresh consideration in accordance with law after the requisite materials and subsequent events are taken into account.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumptive tax liability based on non-production of transit proof remains rebuttable, and it cannot be finally fastened without affording an effective opportunity to produce the relevant records and without ignoring pending proceedings that may determine who was on the facts responsible for the alleged misappropriation.

---