The main legal point established in the judgment is that action under Section 21 of the Act must be based on relevant material, and the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the importer status of the applicant.

( 1 ) PRESENT revision Under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated December 21, 1991 for the assessment year 1980-81.

( 2 ) APPLICANT was carrying on the business of palm oil and edible oil. At the time of assessment proceedings Under Section 7 read with Rule 41 (7), applicant had disclosed the sales of U. P. purchased oil for Rs. 6,67,500. 78 and claimed exemption on such sales on the ground that in respect of such goods, applicant was neither importer nor manufacturer. Applicant had made purchases for Rs. 6,36,270 and admittedly, a list of purchases was filed, in which name of the parties and address were mentioned. Assessing authority had passed the assessment order under rule 41 (7) on March 27, 1984 and allowed the exemption on the turnover of Rs. 6,67,500. 78 on the ground that it was related to U. P. purchased goods. It appears that after passing assessment order, the assessing authority had started making the enquiry from the respective assessing authority of the seller about the genuineness of the seller party and about the sale made by them. One of the letter No. 895 dated January 18, 1984 appeared to have been written by the assessing authority to the Sales Tax Officer (Information), Kanpur, for making enquiry about sixteen dealers relating to Kanpur from whom the applicant had disclosed to have made the purchases. Sales Tax Officer (Information), Kanpur vide letter dated February 23, 1984 informed the assessing officer of the applicant that in the absence of complete address, any action from its office was not possible. He requested to send the complete address for necessary action. It is not clear whether the assessing authority had sent any reply to the Sales Tax Officer (Information), kanpur, against letter dated February 13, 1984. However, as per the order sheet, which is filed a annexure No. CA-1 to the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents, a notice Under Section 21 of the Act was issued on March 27, 1984 and the applicant was asked to appear on March 31, 1984. The said notice was served on the applicant, for which there is no dispute. Perusal of the order sheet, annexure No. CA-1, shows that in the right hand side there is mention "srimanji vyapari Ki ek suchana prapat hui Hai Jiska abhi Milan patravali se nahin ho pa raha hai ! Ataha uchit adesh hetu prastut hai". In the left side there is noting that "vayapari ki patravali se kuch suchana Sales Tax Officer suchana kha, Kanpur ko Bheji gai hai January 18, 1984 ko, chuki satyapan hokar abhi nahin aaya hai ! Ataha Dhara 21 ka notice jari kare !"

( 3 ) BEFORE the assessing authority, applicant challenged the validity of the proceedings Under section 21 on the ground that at the time of issue of the notice Under Section 21, on March 27, 1984 there was no material on the basis of which any information could be formed about the escaped assessment. Assessing authority, however, has not accepted the plea of the applicant. It appears that the assessing authority has made further enquiry through the respondents-officers about the seller and it was gathered that in the absence of complete address these selling parties were not traceable. Therefore, it was inferred that the parties were forged. It also appears that the assessing authority required the complete address of the sellers and when further enquiry was made it was found that such parties were not traceable on such address and therefore, it was inferred that the selling parties were forged and accordingly, the tax had been assessed on the turnover, which was, according to the applicant were relates to the goods purchased within the state of U. P. and according to the assessing authority was made from the forged parties. Applicant filed the appeal, which was allowed and case was remanded back to theassessing authority was made from the forged parties. Applicant filed the appeal, which was allowed and