Burden shifts to Revenue when assessee supports a loan explanation; unsupported presumption cannot establish purchase suppression.

An alleged receipt could not be treated as suppressed purchases under reassessment when the assessee denied purchase suppression and produced material supporting a loan transaction, including accounting entries and a statement from the other party. Once that explanation was furnished, the burden shifted to the Revenue to disprove it, and the assessee was not required to prove a negative fact. As the authorities relied only on presumption and lacked adequate material to establish purchase suppression, the reassessment and penalty orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged loan transaction could be treated as suppression of purchases for the purpose of reassessment under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The assessee produced material to show that the impugned receipt was a loan transaction, including supporting entries and a statement from the other party. Once the assessee denied the existence of suppressed purchases and furnished some material in support of the loan explanation, the burden shifted to the Revenue to disprove that explanation. The assessee could not be expected to positively prove a negative fact, and the authorities below proceeded only on presumption without adequate material to establish purchase suppression.

Conclusion: The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the finding of purchase suppression could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and penalty orders were set aside and the revision petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee denies alleged suppressed purchases and supports an alternative transaction with material, the Revenue must disprove that explanation before drawing an adverse inference; a presumption of suppression cannot rest on unsupported suspicion.

---