SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS set of Appeals once again concerns the aspect of exemption from payment of Entry Tax under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas, Consumption, Use or Sale Therein act, 1979. The issue in question has been the subject matter of various Decisions and undoubtedly, the law on the point is well settled. There is however one small aspect of the matter that requires due emphasis insofar as it is precisely in respect of this very aspect which has once again arisen also in the present set of Appeals that the legal requirements must be duly clarified. When a contention is taken up that even though the goods physically entered a local area which is subjected to the payment of Entry Tax and the goods in question have either been re-sold or otherwise re-exported out of that area for purposes of ultimate consumption, the Courts have invariably taken the view that since the levy of tax is in respect of ultimate consumption that the goods could be exempt from payment of local tax if they are re-exported to a point where such tax is not payable. Such pleas are often taken up and it is necessary to plug the loopholes with regard to the application of these principles, in order to avoid situations whereunder for purposes of evading the payment of Entry Tax, a plea has been taken up that there has been a resale or a re-export. Occasionally, incidents do arise, such as in the case of consumer goods, whereby the contention is that the goods are carried out of the local area for distribution to various clients, agents and customers and that therefore, that sector of the goods should be exempt from the entry Tax. This Court had occasion to consider the legal position which is enunciated in the division Bench Decision reported in 89 STC 221, Siddhagiri v. Entry Tax Officer, II Circle, commercial Tax Department, Belgaum and also in the subsequent Decision of the Supreme court reported in 95 STC 5, Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal and Co. . It is with regard to the application of the principle that flows from these Decisions that we need to lay down some further clarifications and guidelines. . It is with regard to the application of the principle that flows from these Decisions that we need to lay down some further clarifications and guidelines. ( 2 ) AS indicated by us where the plea is that despite the imports into a local area which attracts tax, that an exemption is still liable to be granted because the ultimate destination or consumption of the goods is outside the local area, there will have to be adequate proof adduced before the authorities before such exemption can be granted. The reason for it is that on the imports into the local areas, the incidence of tax is complete and normally, the correct procedure would be that the party should be required to pay the tax by virtue of having brought the goods into the local area and obtain a refund if it can be demonstrated conclusively that the goods have been taken out. The Court also takes cognizance of the fact that this procedure may lead to numerous problems, both for the tax payer and for the Revenue, and therefore, the law recognises a situation whereby if the tax payer is able to demonstrate conclusively that the goods have been taken out not only from that area, but the ultimate purpose is for supply to a point or to an another party signifying thereby that the goods are for the use and consumption in an area outside the local area, an exemption would be permissible. It is this last aspect of the matter which requires to be emphasised in so far as it is insufficient to merely canvass such a plea because the onus of proof would shift completely to the person claiming exemption who will have to prove that the plea taken is in fact quite correct and justified. It is in this back ground that we are required to deal with the facts of the present set of Appeals. ( 3 ) THE appellant is a partnership firm dealing in textiles and they have their principal place of business at Hubl. According to the appellants, they had procured certain textiles from M/s jiyajee Cotton Mills, Gwalior and M/s Gwalior Mills both of which Companies are situated in another State, to be precise in Gwalior. ( 3 ) THE appellant is a partnership firm dealing in textiles and they have their principal place of business at Hubl. According to the appellants, they had procured certain textiles from M/s jiyajee Cotton Mills, Gwalior and M/s Gwalior Mills both of which Companies are situated in another State, to be precise in Gwalior. The appellant's case is that they have other customers in different parts of Karnataka and that the goods in question were procured for supply to those customers who run the retail counters. According to them for purposes of convenience, they had instructed the consignors to despatch the goods directly to those parties. Due to certain transport problems, a few of these consignments were delivered directly to the appellants at Hubli and according to them they thereafter prepared the necessary invoices and despatched those very consignments to the five different customers. It is in respect of this lot of goods that were re-despatched that the present Appeals are concerned. ( 4 ) THE Assessing Officer refused to accept the contention that the goods were in fact meant to be sent directly to the customers and that the appellants had only re-routed them and he held that in so far as these goods were received in Hubli which is a local area, that it attracts the Entry Tax. Accordingly, the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,885. 50, Rs. 33,307/- and Rs. 36,690/-respectively in respect of the three Cases and it is in respect of these assessment orders that the appeals were filed by the appellants. ( 5 ) THE Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order dated 14. 2. 1986 dealt with the issues which were common in all the three assessment orders and allowed the appeals because he was of the view that once the Assessing Authority accepted the position that the goods have in fact been re-despatched from Hubli that the levy of tax was unjustified. The Commissioner in revision set aside the order of the appellate authority principally on one ground in so far as he took the view that the assessee had contended that the goods had been resold and the commissioner recorded the finding that a resale of goods is a normal commercial transaction which would not ipso facto qualify for exemption and that a transaction of resale ought not to have made any difference. It is against this order that the present three Appeals have been directed. ( 6 ) THE appellant's learned Advocate has referred to the aforesaid Decisions and he submitted that this is a case in which his clients have produced the requisite invoices in support of their plea that the goods were in fact re-sold and re-exported. He has produced before us the xerox copies of the original invoices from Gwalior wherein the name of the customers have been mentioned and it has been clearly stated that the goods were being sent to the appellants, but that their ultimate destination was the customers. It is on this basis that the learned Advocate has submitted that the Commissioner was in error in having interfered with the order wherein the appeals had been allowed. The Learned Advocate has further submitted that the application of the principles that have been carved out in the aforesaid Decisions would unequivocally indicate that in so far as the appellants in these cases were acting virtually as the Forwarding Agents in respect of the consignments when they came to Hubli while it ought to have gone directly to their customers, that there is no shadow of doubt about the eligibility for tax exemption. On the other hand, the learned Advocate who represents the Department has brought to our notice that a perusal of the assessment order would clearly indicate that in support of their plea that the goods had been re-exported, the appellants are only supposed to have produced some invoices. He submitted that the Court ought to have taken cognizance of the various practices that are prevalent and of the inherent possibility of an attempt made to evade payment of Entry Tax merely by taking up the pleas that the goods have been sold. The submission is that such material is hopelessly inadequate for the purpose of qualifying for exemption and that consequently, the order of the Commissioner is liable to be upheld. ( 7 ) ON a consideration of the material before us, we are inclined to uphold the objections that have been canvassed on behalf of the Department. In the circumstances earlier indicated, the onus of proof shifts completely to the assessee to establish to the complete satisfaction of the department that Entry Tax is not payable. ( 7 ) ON a consideration of the material before us, we are inclined to uphold the objections that have been canvassed on behalf of the Department. In the circumstances earlier indicated, the onus of proof shifts completely to the assessee to establish to the complete satisfaction of the department that Entry Tax is not payable. On the facts of the present case where the contention is that the goods have in fact been re-sold, what is more important is that it must be demonstrated that the goods did in fact leave the local area and that the ultimate point of consumption was out side the local area. As far as the second aspect of the matter is concerned, we are of the view that mere production of some invoices would not be adequate, insofar as where it is contended that the goods are re-sold, there ought to be adequate and complete documentary proof in support of that plea. In the absence thereof, we are of the view that the plea may not be sustainable. Since the burden of proof lies on the assessee, it is for the assessee to discharge that burden and in the circumstances of the present case, we do propose to set aside the orders in Revision. We are of the view that the assessee must be afforded a fresh opportunity to establish that they qualify for exemption. It is in this back ground that the Appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The assessee is granted 12 weeks time to appear before the Assessing Authority and to produce satisfactory evidence in support of the plea that the goods were in fact re-exported and that they do not qualify for payment of Entry Tax. The appellants are directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on 29. 1. 1996 in the first instance. The Assessing Authority shall give the appellants a hearing, examine the material produced by them and pass fresh orders according to law. ( 8 ) THE Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.