1974 (8) TMI 93 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of tax on importer of match-boxes, Burden of proof on assessee, Interpretation of U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970, Applicability of section 12-A in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with four applications arising from a judge's order dismissing revisions related to tax assessments for the years 1963-64 to 1966-67. The judge upheld the assessment of the petitioners as importers of match-boxes due to lack of purchase vouchers, failure to provide selling dealers' details, and absence of maintained accounts. The main issue raised was whether the judge was justified in placing the burden of proof on the assessee. The counsel referred to a previous Division Bench decision highlighting the onus on the department to prove sales by importers or manufacturers under specific sections. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 introduced section 12-A, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee for facts within their knowledge, especially related to exceptions like those in section 3-A. In this case, the burden was on the assessee to prove the matchboxes sold were imported, as they were manufactured outside U.P. The judge's decision to place the burden on the assessee was deemed justified as they failed to produce necessary documentation.

The judgment discussed the retrospective effect of section 12-A introduced by the amending Act of 1970. The provision was considered to be in force at all relevant dates, including the assessment order date in 1970. Procedural amendments like section 12-A are generally retrospective and apply to pending proceedings. Therefore, even without explicit retrospective application, the section would have been applicable to the cases at hand. The introduction of section 12-A rendered the previous decision in Gupta Homeo Medical Stores case irrelevant to the present cases. Hence, there was no need to request a statement of the case. Ultimately, the applications under section 11(4) of the Act were dismissed, with no costs imposed.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the burden of proof on the assessee in tax assessment cases, particularly regarding imported goods and exceptions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It highlighted the legislative changes introduced by the 1970 amendment and emphasized the retrospective application of procedural amendments like section 12-A. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles involved in determining tax liabilities and the burden of proof in such matters.