Court clarifies requirements for tax exemption under Orissa Sales Tax Act Entry 29-B, emphasizing direct sales to Defense installations.

The Court upheld the decisions of the Asst. Commissioner and the Tribunal, emphasizing the requirement to prove sales to Defense Service Installations for exemption under Entry 29-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The Assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for certain sales, resulting in disallowance of deductions. The Court rejected the argument that sales to individuals for resale to Defense personnel qualified, stating direct sales to Defense Service installations or personnel were necessary. The revision petition was dismissed, and amounts paid were to be set off against tax liability.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Entry 29-B of List-A of the Rate Chart under the Orissa Sales Tax Act 1947.
2. Claim for deduction of sales to Defence Organizations.
3. Burden of proof on the dealer for claiming exemption from sales tax.
4. Disallowance of deduction by the Sales Tax Officer.
5. Dismissal of further appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petition arose from an order dismissing the Assessee's appeal against the Sales Tax Officer's assessment. The main question was whether the goods sold for defense organizations through dealers would be exempted under Entry 29-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Law.

2. The Assessee, engaged in the business of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL), claimed deductions for sales to Defense Organizations. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed the deduction due to lack of evidence. The Assessee appealed, and the Asst. Commissioner allowed the deduction partially based on proof provided for some sales.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's further appeal, stating that the goods disallowed were not sold to Defense Organizations but to individuals. The burden of proof for claiming exemption from sales tax was on the dealer to show sales to Defense Service Installations for resale to Military installations and personnel.

4. The Court upheld the decisions of the Asst. Commissioner and the Tribunal, emphasizing the requirement to prove sales to Defense Service Installations. The Assessee failed to provide evidence for certain sales, leading to their disallowance as deductions.

5. The Court rejected the Assessee's argument that sales were made to individuals who could further sell to Defense personnel, stating that the goods should be sold directly to Defense Service installations or personnel. The revision petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, with amounts paid to be set off against tax liability.

---