Survey documents and statutory burden of proof supported turnover enhancement despite later registration and challenged records.

Tax liability was held not to depend on the date of registration where the assessee had carried on taxable sales before registration and failed to produce material showing the source of goods. The statutory burden under the Act remained on the assessee to establish the relevant facts. Survey documents found at the assessee's premises, relating to the relevant period, were treated as valid material for enhancing turnover because the Tribunal's findings on their authenticity and relevance were supported by the record and were not shown to be perverse. The earlier precedent relied on was distinguished on the basis that it involved no incriminating material for the earlier years.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could avoid tax liability on the ground that it was not registered on the relevant date. (ii) Whether documents recovered during survey and found at the assessee's premises could be used to enhance turnover for the assessment year in question.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could avoid tax liability on the ground that it was not registered on the relevant date.

Analysis: Liability to pay tax does not depend upon the date of registration if, on facts, the assessee is found to have carried on taxable sales before registration. Under the statutory definition of manufacturer, a dealer making the first sale of the relevant goods within the State, including a selling agent acting on behalf of the manufacturer, falls within the taxable net. The assessee failed to produce material showing from whom the goods were purchased, and the statutory burden under the Act lay upon it to establish the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The plea based on later registration was rejected and the liability was held to be sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether documents recovered during survey and found at the assessee's premises could be used to enhance turnover for the assessment year in question.

Analysis: The documents seized during survey related to sales of the relevant period and were found at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal had given reasons for rejecting the defence that the records belonged to independent hawkers, including the absence of any plausible explanation for the presence of old monthly records at the premises. Those findings were supported by the record and were not shown to be perverse. The earlier decision relied upon by the assessee was distinguishable because that case involved no incriminating material for the earlier years.

Conclusion: The survey material was validly relied upon and the turnover enhancement was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was held to be without merit, and the assessment based on the survey documents and the statutory burden on the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where survey documents found at the assessee's premises relate to the relevant period and the assessee fails to displace the statutory burden of proof, the turnover may be enhanced and the factual findings will not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction absent perversity.

---