https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150406 Where sales are admitted but the assessee claims they were effected outside the taxing State, the burden lies on the assessee to prove the alleged outside situs. In the absence of any material showing that the transactions occurred at Bombay, and with no Bombay branch established, the assessing authority could draw an adverse inference from the failure to produce evidence. Section 10 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was held not to shift the initial burden to the department merely because the situs of admitted sales was disputed. The turnover was therefore liable to tax in Madras. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2013 14:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150406 Where sales are admitted but the assessee claims they were effected outside the taxing State, the burden lies on the assessee to prove the alleged outside situs. In the absence of any material showing that the transactions occurred at Bombay, and with no Bombay branch established, the assessing authority could draw an adverse inference from the failure to produce evidence. Section 10 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was held not to shift the initial burden to the department merely because the situs of admitted sales was disputed. The turnover was therefore liable to tax in Madras. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 26 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150406