1974 (8) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the purchase vouchers. In his oral statement, he admitted that he did not possess purchase vouchers. He also showed his inability to give particulars of the selling dealers. He did not maintain accounts. The judge (Revisions) observed that the burden lay upon the assessee to show that all his purchases were from inside the State. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the question of law raised in these cases is whether the Judge (Revisions) was justified in placing the burden of proof on the assessee. In support of this contention, the learned counsel invited our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gupta Homeo Medical Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 415. In that cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the knowledge of the assessee is upon the assessee. This presumption applies to a case which is brought within the exception or exemptions mentioned, inter alia, in section 3-A. The exception mertioned in section 3-A is that taxes are not leviable except in the hands of the manufacturers or importers. The fact that a dealer in U.P. sells goods, which have not been either manufactured or imported by him, is a fact which is specially within the knowledge of that dealer. Hence, in view of section 12-A, the burden of proving such fact will lie upon the assessee. In the present case, the fact to be determined was whether the matchboxes sold by the assessee, which were admittedly manufactured outside the State of U.P., were imported by the ass....