Rebuttable tax presumption on transit-pass non-compliance sustained where the taxpayer failed to produce credible contrary evidence.

Non-production of duly endorsed transit passes under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 triggered the statutory presumption that the goods were sold within Assam. The taxpayer failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence of cross-border movement and out-of-State delivery, and the documents sought to be added were treated as vague, incomplete, and unexplainedly belated. In revisional jurisdiction, no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown in the concurrent assessment and appellate findings, so interference was not warranted and remand was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent orders upholding assessment and penalty for failure to produce duly endorsed transit passes under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the matter should be remanded for consideration of additional documents sought to be produced belatedly.

Analysis: The liability arose from non-production of the transit passes with the requisite endorsement from the exit check-post, attracting the statutory presumption under section 76(6) that the goods had been sold within Assam. The petitioner failed to rebut that presumption by producing reliable evidence showing due cross-border movement and delivery outside the State. The documents relied upon were found to be vague and untrustworthy, as they did not contain essential particulars such as vehicle registration, consignment note details, or reference to the disputed transit passes. The application to bring additional materials on record was also unsupported by any satisfactory explanation for the delay. In revisional jurisdiction, especially against concurrent findings, no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted, and the request for remand was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent assessment and appellate findings were sustained, and the revision failed for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a rebuttable presumption on non-compliance with transit-pass requirements, the burden lies on the taxpayer to produce credible evidence to displace it, and revisional interference is unavailable absent perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings.

---