w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mittal and Company v/s Commissioner of Sales Tax

    S.T.R. 668,669 Of 1986

    Decided On, 19 August 1987

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH

    For the Appearing Parties: Bharatji Agarwal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

OM PRAKASH, J.

(1.) These are the two revisions one each under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (briefly Act No. 1948) and the Central Sales Tax Act by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 31st May, 1986. Both are disposed of together by a combined order.

(2.) Let me take up first the revision relating to the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that no sale within U. P. was effected during this year. As the manufacturing account was not maintained by the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacture of chatni and churan, the assessing officer estimated the sales within U. P. on the ground that the assessee had effected sales within U. P. in the past also. The question for consideration is whether the sales within U. P. can be estimated simply for the reason that the book version has been rejected specially when there is a clear contention of the assessee that no sale within U. P. was effected during this year.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to Section 12-A of the Act, 1948 which says that: In any assessment proceedings, when any fact is specially within the knowledge of the assessee, the burden of proving that fact shall lie upon him.

(4.) Relying on this, learned Standing Counsel argues that it was for the assessee to establish that no sale within U. P. was made during this year. No doubt, the initial onus is on the assessee to show that no sale was made within U. P. during the year. But the question is how this onus is to be discharged. For establishing a negative fact, no evidence need be adduced. When the assessee denied the factum of U. P. sales, the onus was shifted to the Revenue to disprove the cpntention of the assessee and that not having done, the authorities below were not right in having presumed the U. P. sales. For the reasons, the turnover of U. P. sales determined at Rs. 24,000 by the Tribunal has to be deleted. This disposes of the revision relating to the U. P. Sales Tax Act.

(5.) Coming to the revision relating to the Central Sales Tax Act, Sri Bharatji Agrawal argued that no enhancement can be made under the Central Sales Tax Act, unless there is material on record that there was a contract which might have occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another. I do not agree with Sri Bharatji Agrawal. When the book version was rejected, best judgment assessment has got to be made. So the Tribunal was right in estimating the Central sales at Rs. 90,000 as against the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Central sales shown at Rs. 65,731 by the assessee. I do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in this regard. (6.) In the result, the revision relating to U. P. sales is allowed and the revision relating to Central sales is dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R