Burden of proof on ex-U.P. purchases remains with dealer after rejected books; invoices alone were insufficient.

After rejection of the books of account, the dealer retained the burden to prove that the claimed ex-U.P. purchases were made from registered outside-State dealers and that the goods actually moved as stated. Applying section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, the Court held that invoices, banking-channel payments and mandi forms were insufficient where the vehicle numbers were fictitious or inconsistent. The dealer therefore failed to establish genuine inter-State movement or the authenticity of the purchases, and the Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden to the Department. The assessment treating the purchases as taxable within the State was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after rejection of the books of account, the burden to prove ex-U.P. purchases and actual movement of goods lay on the dealer, and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the tax and shifting the burden to the Department.

Analysis: The books of account had already been rejected and that finding was not under challenge. The remaining controversy was whether the dealer had established that the goods were purchased from registered dealers outside the State and were actually transported as claimed. The Court applied the burden-of-proof rule under section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act and held that mere invoices, banking-channel payments, and mandi forms were insufficient. Since the vehicle numbers furnished by the dealer were found to be fictitious or inconsistent, the dealer failed to prove the actual physical movement of goods or the genuineness of the claimed purchases. In such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the Department.

Conclusion: The claim of ex-U.P. purchases was not proved, the Department was not required to disprove it, and the assessment treating the purchases as taxable within the State was upheld.

---