P.K.Jain, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party.
(2.) The dispute relates to the turnover of Rs. 2,30,000 which the assessee claimed to be of locally purchased goods. The dealer produced bills of local purchase but the same were not accepted by the authorities below on the ground that the selling dealers had given fake registration numbers on the sale vouchers. The department took the view that the dealer had imported the goods and thereafter sold the same in the State of U.P.
(3.) The revisionist deals with the business of purchase and sale of galvanized pipes etc. It is not disputed that sale of galvanized pipes by the manufacturer or importer only is taxable. The assessee has claimed that he made entire purchases from the State of U.P. In support thereof he produced purchase bills. Simply because on the purchase vouchers the registration numbers of the selling dealers were found to be fake, the assessee cannot be treated as an importer. Sri Kesharwani has argued that under Section 12-A the burden of proof was upon the revisionist which he has failed to discharge. Once the dealer says that he has not imported the goods he is not expected to furnish proof of negative form. It was for the department to establish beyond doubt that the goods were imported by the assessee. If the selling dealers had not correctly stated their registration numbers or registration numbers given by them were fake, without further evidence the assessee cannot be held to be an importer. The authorities below have committed error in drawing an inference that the dealer was an importer.;