Input tax rebate claims require proof of eligible purchases; mismatched seller returns and adequate hearing justified rejection.

Assessment proceedings under the value added tax law were not invalidated for want of notice or hearing where the dealer had been called upon to produce accounts and supporting documents and was afforded an opportunity to participate before the final order. The challenge based on natural justice therefore failed. Input tax rebate was also correctly rejected because entitlement depends on statutory conditions and the dealer bears the burden of proving eligible purchases; where the selling dealers' returns did not match the claimed purchases and the dealer could not verify the transactions, the authorities were entitled to disallow the rebate. The concurrent factual findings were sustained and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment proceedings and rejection of input tax rebate were vitiated for want of proper notice and opportunity of hearing under the value added tax law; (ii) Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving entitlement to input tax rebate when the purchases did not match the sellers' returns.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment proceedings and rejection of input tax rebate were vitiated for want of proper notice and opportunity of hearing under the value added tax law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between the call for records and verification of accounts and the later stage of best judgment or further assessment. A notice was issued, the assessee was called upon to produce accounts and supporting documents, and the proceedings were taken forward after mismatch entries were noticed in the tax report. The record showed that opportunity to participate in the proceedings was afforded before the final order.

Conclusion: The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, and the proceedings were not held invalid for want of notice or hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving entitlement to input tax rebate when the purchases did not match the sellers' returns.

Analysis: Entitlement to input tax rebate is subject to the statutory conditions, and the burden lies on the dealer to establish that the purchases qualify for rebate. Where the selling dealers did not reflect the corresponding sales in their returns, the authorities were entitled to reject the unmatched rebate claim. The concurrent factual findings recorded that the assessee could not verify the disputed purchases and failed to discharge the statutory burden.

Conclusion: The rejection of the input tax rebate was upheld, and the findings against the assessee were sustained.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law was found, the concurrent orders were sustained, and the tax appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee is given notice and opportunity in assessment proceedings, and fails to prove entitlement to input tax rebate in the face of mismatched selling-dealer returns, the rejection of rebate and the concurrent factual findings will not be interfered with in appeal absent a substantial question of law.

---