PK Deka, J.
1.Heard Mr. OP Bhati and Mr. SK Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General,
Assam.
2. The petitioner is involved in the business of transportation of goods and during the course of such business of transportation for the financial years
2011-12 and 2012-13, the petitioner transported the subject consignments from outside the State of Assam in order to be delivered outside the State of
Assam i.e. Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh through the State of Assam. The petitioner is required to obtain the transit pass as prescribed from the
entry check post and such transit passes are required to be produced before the Officer In-charge of the exit check post for the purpose of
endorsement thereof in support of the fact that such consignments duly crossed the State of Assam and the same have not been sold or disposed of
 produced before the Officer In-charge of the concerned entry check post within 30 days from the date of their issuance within the meaning of
Section 76(6) of the Act. In the present case in hand, Boxirhat in the State of Assam is the entry check post which issued the transit passes in relation
to the various consignments meant for the delivery in the State of Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.
3. It would not be out of place to mention here that transit passes No. 1434353 and 1479977 covering consignments to be delivered in the State of
Meghalaya and another set of eight numbers of transit passes covered consignments to be delivered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Owing to non-
production of the endorsed transit passes, the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Taxes, Boxirhat check post in exercise of his power under
Section 76(6) of the Act made the assessment on 26.09.2012 for the period ending on 31.12.2011 in respect of two transit passes imposing tax,
interest and penalty amounting Rs. 3,14,243/-. Similarly, by another assessment order dated 26.09.2012 imposed sum of Rs. 2,91,566/-, Rs. 10,95,755/-
and Rs. 8,06,083/-. The said assessments were against ten numbers of transit passes for the financial year mentioned hereinabove.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by such assessment orders preferred 4 (four) revision petitions before the respondent No. 3, the Joint Commissioner
of Taxes, Assam and vide order dated 23.07.2014 bearing No. CVAT-1/2013/116/164, the same were disposed of thereby allowing the benefit for
payment of tax against transit passes covering goods meant for delivery in the State of Meghalaya and regarding the other eight numbers of transit
passes covering consignments to be delivered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh were dismissed. The respondent No. 3 while disposing of the said
revision petitions held as follows:-
“On appraisal of the evidence furnished before me regarding movement of consignments under the TP’s in dispute, I find that two
consignments under TP’s No. 1434353 BOX and No. 1479977 BOX are duly certified to have crossed over to the State of Meghalaya by the
prescribed authority at the exit Check gate and thus accepted as valid evidences towards the claim. In respect of other 8 (eight) Nos of transit pass,
the petitioner has furnished certificate found to be issued by Superintendent of Taxes and excise, Likabali BFC East Siang Dist Arunachal Pradesh.
Confirming movement of goods to Arunachal Pradesh purportedly in response to petitioners letters in the matters, surprisingly the certificates do not
contain any information on the (1) Registration No of the vehicle, carrying the consignment, (2) Consignment Note No and date (3) Description of the
consignment of goods (4) No reference to the disputed TP No. (5) Surprise mention of manual endorsement of TP although he is not the authority as
per provision of the Act.
I find these certificates to be vague, not reliable as a piece of evidence not relevant to the claim of the petitioner and extraneous throwing considerable
doubt upon the correctness of the claim.
I therefore have no hesitation to dismiss the petitions having reference with eight Nos. of TP’s barring only two Nos. of TP’s as discussed
above.â€
5. Thereafter the petitioner preferred two appeals before the Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue bearing Case Nos. STA 48/2014 and STA
49/2014. The said appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 15.06.2015 by holding as follows:-
“These two papers, the Appellant claims are to rebut the presumption that the goods have been sold within the state of Assam. Here the first thing
that emerges is that a reasonable explanation should first be there why the transit passes could not be produced at the exit check gate of Assam for
due endorsement if the goods had passed through that point. The Appellant is a regular transporter and is aware that this is a mandatory requirement
of law. The Appellant has not even made an attempt to explain why the transit passes were not produced at the exit check post and the trucks moved
through, if at all, to the other state. Thereafter a vague certificate issued by the Superintendent of Taxes and Excise of the Govt. of Arunachal
Pradesh which does not even mention the registration No. of the truck cannot be accepted as sufficient evidence in support of the Appellant’s
claim. The endorsement made by the 60 Engineer Regiment on the consignment note that goods have been received is also not strong enough
evidence in the matter. It is clear that the Appellant has not been able to produce persuasive evidence to defeat the presumption provided in law that
the goods have been sold within the state of Assam. The point raised by the Appellant that the learned Superintendent of Taxes completed the
assessment merely on the presumption that the goods have been sold in Assam and the learned Joint Commissioner of Taxes has passed his order
only on a conjecture and surmise without establishing that the goods were sold within state of Assam is adequately answered by the Section 76(6) of
the AVAT Act. Since the Appellant has not produced the transit permits with due endorsement from the exit check post the law provides for a
presumption to be made that they have been sold within the state. The burden of presenting sufficiently persuasive evidence to the contrary to defeat
this presumption was on the Appellant. Since the Appellant have failed to do so there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed.â€
Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 81 of the Act.
6. Mr. Bhati submits that the Hon’ble Board mechanically disposed of the appeals without going into the merit of the appeals. The present
petitioner before the Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue sought for leave to bring on record some new facts and documents in order to show that
the goods entered into the State of Arunachal Pradesh and on its entry on 21.09.2012, the Department of Tax and Excise, Arunachal Pradesh, put
their endorsement on the transit passes issued by the respondent No. 4. The presumption on the basis of which the said assessments along with
penalty were imposed is purely on misconception inasmuch as the petitioner produced before the respondent No. 3, the requisite documents in order to
show that the consignments were delivered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and upon such materials, the respondent No. 3 ought to have held that
the presumption drawn by the respondent No. 4 was rebutted as in the case of the transit passes covering consignments to be delivered in the State of
Meghalaya. The documents were later on sought to be introduced in the Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue and a duty at least, was cast upon the
Hon’ble Board to go through the said documents and verify. Having not done so, the findings of the Hon’ble Board are liable to be set aside
and the matter be remanded for reconsideration of the appeals giving due weightage to the documents sought to be introduced by the petitioner.
7. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, took us to Form-64 under the Assam Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and submits that the
requisite entries in the transit pass issued by the officer in the exit check post which consists of the requisite consignment note number and date,
destination of the consignment etc. On the other hand referring to the documents, more specifically, the common certificate issued by the 58, Engineer
Regiment certifying the receipt of the consignments in the State of Arunachal Pradesh bears no particulars of the transit pass and under such
circumstances, there is no perversity in the findings either of the Joint Commissioner and Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue. It is the duty on the
part of the transporter to submit the transit pass issued at the entry check post with due endorsement from the concerned officials of the exit check
post within Assam in order to rebut the presumption that the consignments were not delivered within the State of Assam. Having not done so, there is
no infirmity in the findings of the Hon’ble Board. Accordingly, he submits that there is no merit in this revision petition.
8. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. This court is invoking the revisional jurisdiction which is very limited
moreso, when the findings are concurrent which can very well be found from the findings reproduced hereinabove. The presumption in the event of
non-submission of the requisite transit passes with the endorsement of the exit check post can very well be rebutted by simply producing the said
transit passes which the petitioner has failed. Moreover, the transit passes were issued in the year 2011 and 2012 and the appeal before the
Hon’ble Assam Board of Revenue were filed in the year 2015 but on perusal of the application seeking leave to bring on record the new and
additional facts by way of relying the requisite documents it is seen that even on the date of filing the said appeals, the present petitioner was not in a
position to produce those documents not to speak of at the time of filing of revision before the respondent No. 3. In the said application for leave there
is no explanation in order to show as to why there was so much delay. Though as aforesaid the revisional jurisdiction is very limited but even then we
have considered the leave application and the grounds shown there which are not at all satisfactory. Further on scrutiny of the certificate relied by the
petitioner in respect of his claim that the consignments were delivered in the State of Arunachal Pradesh the same cannot be accepted inasmuch as,
not to speak of the consignment note numbers even the official who issued the said certificate has no identity. Keeping in view the findings of the
Hon’ble Board, we are of the opinion that there is no failure on the part of the Hon’ble Board in exercising the jurisdiction while passing the
impugned order in the appeals. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same stands dismissed.
