Burden of proof over seized ornaments and statutory presumption raised substantial questions of law for High Court reference.

The article examines evidentiary questions on whether affidavits and photostat records produced by goldsmiths could displace a finding that the applicants owned seized ornaments, whether ownership could be confirmed against them on a statutory presumption, and whether later customer affidavits shifted the burden of proving ownership to the department. It notes that these issues were treated as substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order and were referred to the High Court for opinion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in disregarding the affidavits and photostat records of goldsmiths in holding the applicants to be the owners of the seized ornaments; whether ownership could be confirmed against the applicants under the statutory presumption; and whether production of customers' affidavits at a later stage shifted the burden of proving ownership to the department.

Analysis: The application turned on the evidentiary worth of affidavits and supporting records produced to show that the seized ornaments belonged to customers or goldsmiths. The questions also involved the effect of the statutory presumption relied upon by the Tribunal and whether the burden of proof remained with the applicants or shifted to the department once such material was produced during adjudication. The Court found that these were substantial legal questions arising from the Tribunal's order and that they warranted reference.

Conclusion: The questions of law framed in the final paragraph of the order were held to arise from the Tribunal's decision and were referred to the High Court for opinion.

---