https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153224 Declarations in form S.T. XXII were treated as prima facie evidence that sales were made to registered dealers, and they could be rejected only on cogent and reliable proof that they were false or forged. Conjectures about the nature of the purchasers, cash payments, or non-production of intermediaries were insufficient, and untested denials could not displace the declarations. On that basis, the deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was upheld. The penalty under section 10(7) also failed because it rested on the same unproved allegation of incorrect declarations or returns, so the penalty foundation disappeared. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:01:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153224 Declarations in form S.T. XXII were treated as prima facie evidence that sales were made to registered dealers, and they could be rejected only on cogent and reliable proof that they were false or forged. Conjectures about the nature of the purchasers, cash payments, or non-production of intermediaries were insufficient, and untested denials could not displace the declarations. On that basis, the deduction under section 5(2)(a)(ii) was upheld. The penalty under section 10(7) also failed because it rested on the same unproved allegation of incorrect declarations or returns, so the penalty foundation disappeared. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 25 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153224