Judgment :- Common Order: P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. These tax case revisions are transferred from the Special Tribunal after its abolition as per Section 3 of the Special Tribunal Repealing Act. 2. In all these revisions, the issue raised is common. Hence, they are taken up together for disposal. 3. These revisions are admitted on 03.04.2006 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in proceeding on the footing that the burden of proof as contemplated under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 stands discharged by mere denial without showing anything more to discharge the burden of proof? 4. The assessee/respondent is a dealer in rubber, doing business in the name and style of Vinod Kumar Enterprises at Kulasekaram. The assessee was a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act from December, 1987 and had no business transaction prior to the date of registration. After registration also, he had only local sales of raw rubber. The assessee was not having a registration under the Central Sales Tax Act and never had any interstate sales. The business of the assessee was closed in the year 1988-89 and the registration certificate was also surrendered. The relevant assessment years are 1988-1989, 1987-1988 and 1985-1986. In respect of assessment year 1988-89, the assessing officer has verified the records in Catholic Syrian Bank, Nagercoil and State Bank of India, Marthandam and Nagercoil and found that the assessee had received T.Ts/DDs from northern cities from the year 1985-1986 to 1988-1989 on various dates. The amount received for the relevant years are: 19881989 – Rs.1,33,36,258/-; 1986-1987- Rs.31,58,000/-; 1987-1988 – Rs.31,58,000/- and 1985-1986- Rs.55,85,000/-. According to the assessing officer, these amounts represent the sale value of the rubber made by the assessee to the buyer in North India and he was of the view that these receipts represent the receipt for inter state sales of rubber not disclosed to the department and held that since it was last purchase in the state, the corresponding purchase value was liable to tax under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the assessing Officer proposed to arrive at the purchase turn over of rubber and the purchase value was estimated by deducting 10% for gross profit and completed the assessment as follows: Sl Appeal No. Asst. Year Turnover Tax AST Penalty No. 1. 1. Therefore, the assessing Officer proposed to arrive at the purchase turn over of rubber and the purchase value was estimated by deducting 10% for gross profit and completed the assessment as follows: Sl Appeal No. Asst. Year Turnover Tax AST Penalty No. 1. 1. AP.47/97 88-89 12123864/- 606193/- 181859/- 1182078/- 2. 2. AP.46/97 87-88 1368181/- 68409/- 17102/- 128266/- 3. 3. AP.44/97 85-86 5077272/- 253864/- 63466/- 380795/- Aggrieved by the order of levying tax as well as penalty, the assessee filed appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the assessment and also penalty was deleted. Aggrieved by that order, the revenue has filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove that the movement of goods was outside the State. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the revenue has filed the present appeals. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse, illegal and not sustainable in law as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of the assessing authority who had rightly assessed the dealers to tax. He further contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that the assessee was a dealer in raw rubber and that they had not reported any turn over by filing returns. Only on verification of bank accounts at State Bank of India, Marthandam and Catholic Syrian Bank, Nagercoil it was noticed that the assessee/dealer has received huge amounts by way of D.Ds and T.Ts from several places and therefore, the assessing officer rightly concluded that in order to evade payment of tax on the last purchases of raw rubber, the dealer has not filed any return and paid the tax due thereon. He also contended that the Tribunal was wrong in deleting the levy of tax and penalty and the same has to be set aside. 6. Inspite of notice being served on the respondent/assessee, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. He also contended that the Tribunal was wrong in deleting the levy of tax and penalty and the same has to be set aside. 6. Inspite of notice being served on the respondent/assessee, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. The assessing officer has verified the records in the State Bank of India, Marthandam and Catholic Syrian Bank, Nagercoil and found that the assessee had received T.Ts and D.Ds from North Indian States. The assessing officer presumed that these receipts represent the sale proceeds in interstate i.e. sales of raw rubber, effected by the assessee to the various dealers outside state of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the corresponding last purchase value under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act had been estimated by deducting 10% towards gross profit in all the orders and also levied penalty. Therefore, the only question for consideration is as to whether there is any suppression based on the extract taken from the State Bank of India, Marthandam and Cathelic Syrian Bank, Nagercoil and also whether the assessments of the consequential last purchase of turn over of raw rubber determined under the TNGST Act is correct. It is a factual finding given by all the authorities below that the respondent/assessee was a registered dealer under the TNGST Act with effect from 1987. It is also to be noted that the assessee after registration did business upto 1988-1989. But he had no interstate sales. It is also pertinent to note that the assessing officer has only relied on accounts in State Bank of India, Marthandam and Catholic Syrian Bank, Nagercoil, and completed the assessment. The appellant denied having received T.Ts and D.Ds through the bank towards payment for the alleged interstate sale of raw rubber effected to various dealers in North India. There is no other materials available on record for determining the suppression of interstate sales of rubber effected by the assessee and also no proof is available to prove that receipt of the money in the bank account related to the assessee. It is seen that the extract was taken only by the officers of the revenue. No cross verification was made with the persons, who sent T.Ts and D.Ds to the said accounts. It is seen that the extract was taken only by the officers of the revenue. No cross verification was made with the persons, who sent T.Ts and D.Ds to the said accounts. Further, there is absolutely no concrete evidence or any incriminating records available for the movement of goods to interstate or entries in check post and no cross verification of the statement from the persons, who had sent T.Ts and D.Ds for receiving the raw rubber. Therefore, the first Appellate Authority, after considering the principles enunciated in the decision of this Court in the case of DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) TIRUCHIRAPALLI VS. SUBRAMANIAM CHETTIAR reported in (1977) 40 STC 434 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA VS. M.MATHEW AND ANOTHER reported in (1978) 42 STC 348 and in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW VS. SURESH CHAND JAIN reported in (1988) 70 STC 45, held that there is no evidence in the assessment filed to prove that there was an inter-state sale of goods from Tamil Nadu to outside the State and further held that the burden of proof for effecting the inter-state sales is on the revenue. Mere extracts, which indicate the receipt of money from places outside the State will not alone prove the movement of goods by the assessee/appellant to outside the State. In view of the same, the fist Appellate Authority set aside the order of the assessment. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue has not filed any material evidence to show that there is an inter-state sales. The Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record, held that the revenue has failed to prove that there is inter-state sales and in paragraph 15 it has held as follows: "15. Hence, it is clear that to constitute a transaction as an inter-state sale there must be a contract between the seller and the buyer and in pursuance of the contract, there must be sale of goods and in confirmation of the same, there should be transport of those goods from one state to another state. But, in this case, there was no proof for the contract of sale between the respondent and the other State buyer. There is no proof for transportation of goods. If the goods were transported in pursuance of inter-state sale, definitely there must be entries in the check-post. But, in this case, there was no proof for the contract of sale between the respondent and the other State buyer. There is no proof for transportation of goods. If the goods were transported in pursuance of inter-state sale, definitely there must be entries in the check-post. If it is so, it could not be difficult for the appellant to procure those evidences. But no such evidence was procured and furnished by the appellant, had not established the interstate-sale. Further, the appellant had not brought out any evidence to prove that the amounts received in the Bank account were received by the respondent and that it related to the receipt of money by the dealer/respondent towards the sale of rubber in the course of inter-state sale transaction. Hence in the absence of any evidence, however limited it may be to prove the inter-state sale, suppression of inter-state sale, sales could not be inferred. The Assessing Officer had made out the assessment on the respondent only on mere assumption on the basis of the extracts taken from the banks. The learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT) after giving deep consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and after careful perusal of the connected records, had come to the conclusion. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant had narrated the difficulties said to have been faced by the department which could not be considered in this appeal. Further when the respondent is disputing the inter-state sale as stated above, it is for the appellant to prove the transaction by strong and acceptable evidence. But the appellant has failed to do the same. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) is in conformity with the Judicial pronouncements of the Higher Forums and supported by sound reasoning. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) is perfectly correct and needs no interference by this Tribunal and we decide the appeals accordingly." Both the authorities have given a categorical concurrent finding that there is no material available on record to show that there was inter-state sales made by the assessee/respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is unable to produce any material evidence before us to take a contrary view of the Tribunal. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is unable to produce any material evidence before us to take a contrary view of the Tribunal. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Appellate Tribunal warranting interference. The order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee/respondent and as against the revenue. Therefore, the revisions filed by the revenue is devoid of merits and the same are dismissed.