ORDER
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. By filing this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of a revisionary order, dated December 16, 2002 (annexure P 9), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax (respondent No. 2) which in turn affirms the assessment order, dated October 23, 1996 (annexure P 6), passed by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 3).
2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of certain items made out of steel, one such item claims to be manufactured by the petitioner is known as “Crowbar”. This item is exempt from payment of sales tax.
3. For the period April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, the petitioner claimed to have sold the said item, i.e., crowbar, valuing Rs. 71,01,344. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of sales tax so far as this item was concerned in the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer as is clear from the order of assessment doubted the genuineness of the invoices and hence, made inquiries through Inspector. It was revealed that the names mentioned in the invoices of the buyers were not in existence. In other words, it was found that the persons to whom the alleged sales were claimed to have been made were not found on their addresses. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to produce the evidence to show that the transactions in question are genuine and that they in fact sold the crowbar to the persons mentioned in the invoices. The petitioner did nothing. In other words, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence. As a consequence, the assessing officer concluded the assessment and declined to grant exemption and added the value of the said goods in the turnover by order dated October 23, 1996 (annexure P 6). The petitioner felt aggrieved filed revision to the Assistant Commissioner who by impugned order upheld the assessment order. It is against this order, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ.
4. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C.R. Pancholia, learned Counsel for petitioner.
5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that both the authorities, i.e., assessing authority as also the revisionary, committed an error of law in not granting exemption to the petitioner of the sales made for the value of Rs. 71,01,344. According to learned Counsel, in the absence of any material on record, the exemption ought to have been granted. Learned counsel further contended that the sales were made by the petitioner and it was for department to have proved that they were not genuine. Learned counsel also contended that these sales were made to registered dealers and hence, their genuineness could not have been put to test. In substance, therefore, the submission was for upholding of the sales in favour of the petitioner.
6. I do not find any merit in the submission though pressed in service with vehemence by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the department did doubt the genuineness of these transactions. It is also not in dispute that the department also made inquiries through departmental channels and came to a conclusion that the transaction in question are not and/or do not appear to be genuine. It was then obligatory upon the petitioner to have led satisfactory evidence to satisfy the assessing authority that the transaction in question is genuine and that what they sold was in fact the crowbar and that too to the persons who are genuine and traceable. Indeed, this could be done by the petitioner by producing the buyers of the goods and /or by tendering best evidence available to satisfy the assessing authorities about the genuineness of the transactions. Once the transactions in question are doubted by the assessing authorities and there is material to support the doubt, it is the duty of the dealer (petitioner) to co-operate in the assessment proceedings and satisfy the assessing authority in relation to the doubtful transactions. The petitioner cannot expect the assessing officer to accept the oral version of the petitioner without there being any material which could be tendered by the petitioner.
7. It is in the light of admitted fact emerging out of the record the two authorities, i.e., assessing authorities, i.e., assessing authority and revisionary authority declined to grant exemption and refused to accept that the alleged sales were of crowbar. As a consequence, relief to that extent was rightly denied.
8. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition which is devoid of substance. In other words, the view taken by the two authorities cannot be faulted with. It is based on proper reasoning.
9. Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.