1998 (11) TMI 638 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 12-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 regarding the admission of additional evidence before the appellate authority or Tribunal.
2. Admissibility of form III-C as additional evidence in the second appeal.
3. Discretion of the Tribunal in rejecting additional evidence.
4. Requirement of due diligence in producing evidence before the assessing authority.
5. Consideration of reasons for non-production of evidence at earlier stages.
6. Judicial precedents on the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 12-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which governs the admission of additional evidence before the appellate authority or Tribunal. The provision allows for the submission of evidence that was wrongly refused by the assessing authority or was not within the knowledge of the assessee despite due diligence.

2. The case involved the admissibility of form III-C as additional evidence in the second appeal. The applicant had not filed the form before the assessing authority, claiming it was not available at the time. The Tribunal refused to admit the evidence during the second appeal, leading to the filing of the present revision on behalf of the State.

3. The Tribunal's discretion in rejecting additional evidence was a key point of contention. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the Tribunal could reject additional evidence if it could have been produced earlier. The applicant's failure to produce form III-C before the assessing authority and the first appellate court was cited as evidence of lack of due diligence.

4. The judgment emphasized the requirement of due diligence in producing evidence before the assessing authority. The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the reason provided by the applicant for non-production of form III-C was insufficient. The court highlighted the importance of the phrase "could not be produced by him before the assessing authority" in determining admissibility.

5. The court considered the reasons for non-production of evidence at earlier stages, noting that if the assessee could not file the document due to reasons beyond their control, it could be admitted in the second appeal. The applicant's assertion that the form was not available and was filed as soon as it was obtained was supported by an affidavit.

6. The judgment referred to several judicial precedents to support the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Citing cases like Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ganpat Ram and Sons, the court reiterated that the discretion to admit or refuse additional evidence should be exercised fairly and reasonably, especially if the evidence was not available earlier.

In conclusion, the revision was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the case for the admission of form III-C as evidence. The Tribunal was directed to allow the respondent to file evidence in rebuttal before deciding the appeal on merits.