- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the High court of Mysore dismissing summarily the Sales Tax Revision Petition filed by the State.
(2.) It was the common case of the parties before the tribunal that the respondent's turnover relating to gingelly and castor seeds became exigible to central Sales Tax by virtue of the insertion of Ss. (I-A) in Section 6 of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by (Amendment) Act 28 of 1969. By virtue of Section 10 of the said Amendment Act, however, the dealer was liable to pay the tax only where he had collected it, for the reason that the period concerned herein fell within what the tribunal called the 'protected period'. (The period concerned herein is from 1/4/1968 to 31/3/1969. ) The burden of proving that he has not collected the tax was, however, placed upon the dealer, by the said Amendment Act. Ss. (1 and (2 of Section 10 of the said Amendment Act read thus: "10.(1 Where any sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has been effected during the period between the 10th day of November, 1964 and the 9th day of June, 1969 and the dealer effecting such sale has not collected any tax under the principal Act on the ground that no such tax could have been levied or collected in respect of such sale or any portion of the turnover relating to such sale and no such tax could have been levied or collected if the amendments made in the principal Act by this Act had not been made, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 9 or the said amendments, the dealer shall not be liable to pay any tax under the principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of such sale or such part of the turnover relating to such sale. (2 For the purposes of Ss. (1, the burden of proving that no tax was collected under the principal Act in respect of any sale referred to in Ss. (1 or in respect of any portion of the turnover relating to such sale shall be on the dealer effecting such sale. "
(3.) The only question before the tribunal was whether the respondent-dealer has discharged that burden The bills issued by him contained an endorsement that the price charged was inclusive of tax. The tribunal held that the said endorsement is no evidence of collection of tax. It said: "In our view, only because it is in the bills shown 'the price inclusive of tax' and in the absence of materials to show that the tax has been collected as such, we are unable to presume that the tax has been collected. In our opinion it is only when there is prima facie proof to show that the tax has been collected, then the occasion arises for the assessee to rebut the presumption that may arise in the context of the prima facie proof that the tax has been collected by him during the protective period. ";