MITTAL AND COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(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.