1989 (11) TMI 293 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 39-A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate or revisional level.
2. Consideration of whether a government notification can be treated as additional evidence under section 39-A.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a reference under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, where the Board of Revenue sought the court's opinion on the admissibility of certain forms appended to a government notification dated March 28, 1969. The primary question was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the production of these forms at any time, despite the restrictions under section 39-A of the Act. The case involved an assessee dealing in paints and hardware, subject to a best judgment assessment resulting in a disputed turnover amount. An appeal was made to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who rejected the claim for set-off due to missing certificates. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal, arguing for the production of the forms in question, which was allowed by the Tribunal, leading to a remand to the assessing officer for reconsideration.

The central issue addressed by the court was whether the government notification and its appended forms could be considered as additional evidence under section 39-A. The court emphasized that a statutory instrument like a government notification, which carries the force of law, cannot be equated with factual evidence barred under section 39-A. The notification in question was deemed a legal provision that must be taken into account by all concerned parties within its operational scope. Section 39-A restricts the production of evidence unless certain conditions are met, such as evidence wrongly refused by the assessing authority or not within the dealer's knowledge. Since the notification was a legal mandate requiring public acknowledgment, the court concluded that section 39-A restrictions did not apply to it. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to consider the notification and its forms was upheld, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.

In light of the legal position accepted by the Revenue's counsel, the court decided not to award costs in the matter. The reference was answered affirmatively, affirming the Tribunal's decision to allow the production of the forms appended to the government notification, emphasizing the distinction between statutory instruments and additional evidence under section 39-A.