ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The authorities have concurrently found that at the time when the vehicle exited the State, Form-34 was not surrendered. A further finding is returned that there was no material to establish that goods had actually crossed the State of U.P. In such circumstances statutory presumption as warranted under Section 28-B of the Act has been drawn. The appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected. Before the Tribunal, however, the revisionist does not appear to have pressed its appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that mere non surrendering of Form-34 would mean that a rebuttal presumption would arise under Section 28-B of the Act and once materials are produced before the authorities to demonstrate that the goods had actually crossed the State, the order of assessment could not have been passed.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, points out that there was no credible evidence adduced before the authorities to demonstrate that goods had actually passed the State of U.P. and, therefore, the authorities were justified in invoking Section 28-B of the Act.;