S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are directed against the orders of assessment passed by the second respondent for the years ending 30th June, 1973 to 30th June, 1978. The assessments have been completed during April, 1988 after the cases were remanded by the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals) by his common order dated 13th December, 1984. The appeals preferred by the petitioner against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner were also dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 22nd May, 1986. ( 2 ) THERE were two rounds of appeals from the orders of the assessment made for these six years. The assessee has failed in both the rounds before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessment orders now impugned in these writ petitions were completed pursuant to the order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner in the second round of appeals. ( 3 ) NORMALLY, this Court would not interfere with an order of assessment made under the Act. The question raised by the petitioner in these cases centres round the controversy regarding the acceptance of form 32 produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority. The learned counsel for the the petitioner has urged that this question may be decided by this Court, without directing the petitioners to file appeals again before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), in view of the interpretation placed by the Deputy Commissioner about the burden of proof under the Act. ( 4 ) THE Government Pleader was directed to take notice regarding rule in all these cases and the writ petitions are disposed of on merits and after issuing rule. ( 5 ) THE controversy relates to the non-acceptance of the declarations in form 32 produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the cases to the assessing authority twice. In the second round of appeals, which were disposed of on 13th December, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessments and remanded the cases to the assessing authority with the following direction : "it is seen from the detailed scrutiny of the assessment records that the assessing authority,. e. , commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Hubli, had allowed exemption, on the re-rolled products of iron and steel on the strength of purchase bills produced by the appellate stating that the raw materials used by him,. e. , commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Hubli, had allowed exemption, on the re-rolled products of iron and steel on the strength of purchase bills produced by the appellate stating that the raw materials used by him,. e. , ingots and billets, had suffered tax at the hands of the earlier sellers. It is also noticed that such purchases had been made by the appellate from his own sister concern. In support of the impugned claim the appellant had not submitted the conclusive evidence of proof as required under explanation II of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales tax Act, 1957. As such in my considered opinion the exemption allowed by the assessing authority is found to be not in order and requires re-examination at the hands of the assessing authority. " ( 6 ) AS already stated the appeals filed against this order by the petitioner before the Appellate tribunal also failed. ( 7 ) SRI Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his challenge to the application and interpretation of explanation II of the Fourth Schedule in the light of the following decisions : (1) Sha Pannalal Pemraj and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hassan Circle, Hassan ILR1975 KAR 597 , [1975 ]35 STC109 (Kar ); (2) S. Narayana Setty v. State of Karnataka [1985] 58 STC 81 (Kar); (3) Srinivasa Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circle [1985] 58 STC 343 (Kar) and has also urged that insistence on the production of proof of payment of tax under explanation ii is ultra vires the provisions of section 6a of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ("the Act") and goes beyond the scope of section 6a. ( 8 ) THE scope and ambit of section 6a vis-a-vis the explanation II of the Fourth Schedule and interpretation of rule 26 (9) and form 32, arises for decision in these cases. ( 9 ) SINCE the petitioner has questioned the literal application of explanation II of the Fourth schedule as being contrary to the decisions of this Court cited above, I deem it proper to permit the petitioner to urge the said contention in these writ petitions. Hence, the preliminary objection advanced on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, is rejected. Hence, the preliminary objection advanced on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, is rejected. ( 10 ) BEFORE examining the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to advert to the claim made by the petitioner before the assessing authority and the proof produced in support of the said claim. The goods in question are steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all qualities, shapes and sizes) which is exigible to tax under entry 2 (a) (ii) of the Fourth Schedule at single point. The point of levy is on the sale by the first or earliest of successive dealers in the State liable to tax under the Act. The petitioner-assessee claimed exemption on the turnover relating to the purchase of the ingots which are the raw material used by the petitioner in re-rolling of ingots into bars, flats, etc. This exemption was claimed under explanation II of the Fourth Schedule which entitles the dealer to claim exemption on the sale of the manufactured articles provided the dealer claiming exemption of tax under the said explanation furnished before the assessing authority proof of levy and payment of tax. This exemption was claimed under explanation II of the Fourth Schedule which entitles the dealer to claim exemption on the sale of the manufactured articles provided the dealer claiming exemption of tax under the said explanation furnished before the assessing authority proof of levy and payment of tax. ( 11 ) THE periods of assessments in these cases being the years ending 30th June, 1973 to 30th june, 1978 the explanation applicable to the present cases up to 31st March, 1978 is reproduced : "explanation.- Where tax has been paid in respect of the sale or purchase of - (i) iron scrap, cast iron scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap referred to in entry (i) of serial number 2 or in respect of steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull turnings and borings referred to in entry (x) of serial number 2, and out of the said scrap, steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all qualities, shapes and sizes) referred to in entry (ii) of serial number 2 are manufactured and sold; or (ii) steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all qualities, shapes and sizes) referred to in entry (ii) of serial number 2, and out of the said steel semis any re-rolled products of iron and steel referred to in any one or more of the entries at (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (xv) of serial number 2 are manufactured and sold, no tax shall be leviable on the sale of the said steel semis or the re-rolled products as the case may be : provided that the dealer claiming exemption of tax under this explanation furnishes before the assessing authority concerned, proof of levy and payment of tax by the previous or earliest of successive dealers on the said scrap or steel semis used in the manufacture of the steel semis re-rolled products, as the case may be : provided further that in respect of the said steel semis or the said re-rolled products or iron and steel, no amount was collected by the dealer from his customers by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax. " ( 12 ) THE explanation was amended by Act 13 of 1982 with effect from 1st April, 1978 and for a part of the last year of assessment, namely, year ending 30th June, 1978, the explanation as amended which is reproduced below, is applicable : "where tax has been levied in respect of any item of goods of iron and steel referred to in of serial number 2, and out of the said goods any other item of goods of iron and steel referred to under the said serial number is manufactured in Karnataka and sold, the tax on the sale of such manufactured goods shall be reduced by the amount of tax already paid under this Act on the relative items of goods of iron and steel used in its manufacture : provided that the burden of proving that the tax under this Act has already been paid and of establishing the exact quantum of tax so paid on such items of goods of iron and steel shall be on the dealer claiming the reduction. " ( 13 ) IN support of the said claim the petitioner produced before the assessing authority, declarations in form 32 obtained from the selling dealers. It should be noted that in respect of some purchases the selling dealers are second sellers and in some cases they are first sellers. After a scrutiny of the declarations in from 32 furnished by the selling dealers, the assessing authority further insisted on the production of proof of levy and payment of tax by the previous selling dealers from whom the assessee had effected purchases. ( 14 ) THE other ground on which the assessing authority declined to grant exemption was that the declarations obtained from the second sellers filed by the petitioner before him, did not contain the particulars, such as names and address and R. C. number of their selling dealers, and the column relating to tax payment was left blank. ( 15 ) REGARDING the first reason given by the assessing authority he relied upon the explanation II of the Fourth Schedule besides the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the cases for redoing the assessments. ( 15 ) REGARDING the first reason given by the assessing authority he relied upon the explanation II of the Fourth Schedule besides the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the cases for redoing the assessments. ( 16 ) IT is urged by Sri Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that having regard to the law laid down by this Court as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 6a relating to burden of proof, the petitioner who is a purchasing dealer need not prove that the selling dealer had paid the tax and such insistence is beyond the scope and ambit of the burden of proof which is cast on the dealer by section 6a of the Act. ( 17 ) THE question, therefore, that arises for consideration is, whether the assessing authority was within his powers in insisting on the production of proof of payment of tax by the selling dealers for claiming exemption or concession. ( 18 ) FROM the records of assessments produced by the learned Government Pleader it is seen that the declarations in form 32 were furnished both by the second sellers as well as by the first sellers. While supporting the order made by the assessing authority Sri Dattu has contended that the assessing authority has acted within his powers and in accordance with law in insisting on production of proof of payment of tax and the dealer who claims total exemption or concession of tax is bound to produce the proof of payment of tax by the selling dealer before he is entitled to any such exemption. ( 19 ) IT is seen from some of the declaration is form 32 produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority that in the case of first seller he has mentioned his address, the R. C. number and the place of assessment and in form 32 furnished by the second seller, his/its name and address, the R. C. number and the place are mentioned. This information according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is in conformity with rule 26 (9) and gives all the necessary information as required to be furnished in the said form. This information according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is in conformity with rule 26 (9) and gives all the necessary information as required to be furnished in the said form. ( 20 ) THEREFORE, what is required to be examined from the facts of the cases and the contentions urged by both sides and the declarations filed before the assessing authority, whether the production of form 32 by the petitioner obtained from the first seller or the second seller, as the case may be, satisfies the requirement of law and whether the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof in order to entitle him to exemption/concession under explanation II during the relevant periods. ( 21 ) THE scope and ambit of section 6a which indicates the manner in which the assessee has to discharge the burden for purpose of exemption under the Act, was considered by this Court in more than one case. The earliest of the decisions is the one reported in ILR1975 KAR 597 , [1975 ]35 STC109 (Kar ) in Sha Pannalal's case. ( 22 ) UNDER section 6a a dealer in any of the goods liable to tax under the Act in respect of the first sale or first purchase in the State shall be deemed to be the first seller or first purchaser, as the case may be, of such goods and shall be liable to pay tax accordingly on his turnover of sales or purchases unless he proves that the sale or purchase as the case may be, of such goods had already been subjected to tax under this Act. ( 23 ) THE meaning and effect of this phrase was explained by this Court in Sha Pannalal's case [1975] 35 STC 109 and in two Division Bench decisions reported in [1985] 58 STC 81 and the other at page 343 [s. Narayana Setty v. State of Karnataka [1985] 58 STC 81 (Kar) and Srinivasa traders v. Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circle [1985] 58 STC 343 (Kar)]. ( 24 ) THIS Court has held in Sha Pannalal's case [1975] 35 STC 109 by E. S. Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was), in the following words : "it is no doubt true ordinarily the burden of establishing the liability under a fiscal statute is on the Revenue. ( 24 ) THIS Court has held in Sha Pannalal's case [1975] 35 STC 109 by E. S. Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was), in the following words : "it is no doubt true ordinarily the burden of establishing the liability under a fiscal statute is on the Revenue. It is however open to the legislature in appropriate cases, in order to avoid evasion of the tax, to place the burden on the assessee himself. When once such a provision passes the test of constitutionality, then it would not be open to the assessee to contend that his liability should not be assessed on the basis of the rule of evidence laid down by the statute. It may be that in certain rare cases, there is a remote possibility of the transaction in respect of the same goods suffering tax more than once on account of paucity of proof. That however would not invalidate either the charging section or the rule of evidence indicated by the legislature. At this stage, it has to be observed that the words 'unless he proves that the sale or purchase, as the case may be, of such goods had already been subjected to tax under this Act' have to be understood as 'unless he proves that the sale or purchase as the case may be of such goods has already become liable to payment of tax under the Act'. It is nor necessary that the dealer should prove that there has been an order of assessment already passed in respect of the turnover relating to the said goods before he can claim exemption under sub-section (2) of section 6a. It is enough if he proves that the turnover in respect of the said goods is liable to payment of tax in the hands of an earlier purchaser. " ( 25 ) THIS enunciation of law relating to burden of proof was approved by the subsequent two division Bench decisions in the cases referred to above. ( 26 ) IN S. Narayana Setty's case [1985] 58 STC 81 the matter came up to this Court in a revision under section 23 (1) of the Act. " ( 25 ) THIS enunciation of law relating to burden of proof was approved by the subsequent two division Bench decisions in the cases referred to above. ( 26 ) IN S. Narayana Setty's case [1985] 58 STC 81 the matter came up to this Court in a revision under section 23 (1) of the Act. The contention urged on behalf of the dealer in the said case was that form 32 produced by the dealer is conclusive of the matter and that the dealer should not be insisted upon to produce any other evidence as to the proof of payment of tax by the earliest or successive dealer. The court (Division Bench) went into this question and examined the scope of the provisions of the Act with reference to section 6a and form 32 which is the prescribed declaration to be filed to comply with the requirements of rule 26 (9) of the Karnataka Sales Tax rules. Rule 26 (9) which is reproduced reads thus : "26. (9) (a) Every dealer in goods taxable at the point of first sale or first purchase in the State, shall, where he is not liable to tax in respect of such goods by reason of his not being the first seller or the first purchaser, furnish to the assessing authority a declaration in form 32 obtained from the registered dealer who sold the goods to him and for this purpose, the seller of such goods shall issue the declaration to the buying dealer. (b) Every dealer in goods taxable at the point of last purchase or last sale in the State, shall, where he is not the last purchaser or last seller of such goods, furnish to the assessing authority, a declaration in form 32 obtained from the registered dealer to whom he sold the goods in question and the buyer of such goods shall issue the declaration to the selling dealer. (c) Every declaration in form 32 issued under clause (a) or clause (b) shall be serially machine numbered for each year and an account in respect of such declaration issued shall be maintained by the dealer in a register in form 32-A. " ( 27 ) ON the facts of the said case, it was observed that the assessee had produced form 32 issued by the dealers registered under the Act and the Division Bench further observed at page 84 thus : "it is also equally well-established that the assessee need not prove that his seller has, in fact, paid the tax as the first seller. " ( 28 ) THEIR Lordships referred to and applied the observations made by the Madras High Court in the case of Govindan and Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1975] 35 STC 50 and also another decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. V. Bhatta v. State of Madras [1965] 16 STC 441. Agreeing with the law laid down by the Madras High Court in the abovementioned two decisions, this Court held that the responsibility of the dealer who claims exemption under the act ceases with the production of declaration in form 32 which was passed on to him by his seller. Besides the production of form 32, it was held by the Division Bench, the dealer must produce some other acceptable evidence to lend credence to the contention that he has purchased the goods from a dealer who is liable to pay tax. If an assessee has produced acceptable evidence as stated above, their Lordships proceeded further to hold, that it was for the assessing officer to accept such evidence unless he comes to the conclusion by other positive proof that the selling dealers were not liable to pay tax on the concerned goods. ( 29 ) THEIR Lordships also further observed that if declarations produced by the dealer as furnished by his sellers have been found to be misused by the selling dealers, it was for the assessing authority to take appropriate action against the selling dealers. However, it was also further observed that the assessing officer should give an opportunity to the assessee to produce such other evidence in support of form 32 such as the purchase bills, to substantiate the contention that he was not the first purchaser. However, it was also further observed that the assessing officer should give an opportunity to the assessee to produce such other evidence in support of form 32 such as the purchase bills, to substantiate the contention that he was not the first purchaser. ( 30 ) IN Srinivasa Trader's case [1985] 58 STC 343 this Court, while dealing with the writ petitions filed challenging the validity of section 6a, upheld the legislative competence of the State legislature and held it is not ultra vires rule 26 (9) (a) and not violative of article 286 of the constitution. ( 31 ) THE Division Bench, while dismissing the writ petitions, upheld the provisions of section 6a and also approved what was laid down by E. S. Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was), in Sha pannalal's case ILR1975 KAR 597 , [1975 ]35 STC109 (Kar ) as the correct law. ( 32 ) IT is urged by Sri Dattu that the declarations filed by the present petitioner do not contain the necessary information or particulars such as names and address, R. C. No. of the selling dealers. The argument of Sri Dattu is that form 32 should contain not only the name and particulars of the second seller but also the earlier seller in order that the assessing authority may verify whether the goods in question have suffered tax either in the hands of the first seller or the second seller. ( 33 ) ON a perusal of the contents of form 32, it is seen that what is required to be produced is the declaration furnished by a dealer that he is liable to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and shall pay tax in respect of sale or purchase. The other requirement is, when he is not a seller or purchaser liable to tax, he should give the name and address of the dealers who are liable to tax, along with the sale bill, etc. This is the requirement as laid down by the section 6a and rule 26 (9 ). In this context, it would be useful to read again rule 26 (9 ). This is the requirement as laid down by the section 6a and rule 26 (9 ). In this context, it would be useful to read again rule 26 (9 ). ( 34 ) THE requirement of rule 26 (9) is that the dealer who claims exemption must produce declaration in form 32 and that declaration should be obtained from the registered dealer who sold the goods to him, and the object of filing such a declaration is undoubtedly to enable the assessing authority to satisfy himself whether the goods purchased by the dealer has suffered tax. For this purpose the particulars of the selling dealer, place of business, the place where he is assessed, his registration number and the sale bill have got to be furnished in the declaration. ( 35 ) ALL these particulars are forthcoming in the declaration filed by the petitioner in these cases. No further proof of payment of tax would be necessary in order to satisfy the assessing authority that he is no liable to tax under the Act, as the subsequent purchaser. No doubt it is open to the assessing authority to call upon the dealer to produce such other acceptable evidence in addition to form 32. One such acceptable evidence is the purchase bill. It is no the case of the department that the petitioner is not in a position to produce purchase bills and whether the production of said purchase bills would not be sufficient to decide the claim for exemption in these cases. ( 36 ) SRI Srinivasan submits that his client is now prepared to produce all the purchase bills covering all the transactions which are the subject-matter of all the assessment orders. ( 37 ) FOR the reasons stated above these writ petitions are allowed and the assessment orders are set aside. I remand the cases to the assessing authority to redo the assessments in the light of this order. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the assessing authority in completing the assessments expeditiously. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the assessing authority on 22nd August, 1988. ( 38 ) WRIT petitions allowed.