Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Meda Mines And Minerals on 13 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: [1990]79STC349(AP)
Author: B.P. Jeevan Reddy
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy
JUDGMENT Jeevan Reddy, J.
1. The only objection of the State in this tax revision case is that additional evidence has been admitted by the Tribunal as a matter of course, i.e., without adhering to the conditions prescribed by regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957. Regulation 11 is practically in the same terms as Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is evident that any additional evidence can be admitted only in accordance with, which means only where any one of the conditions specified in the said regulation is satisfied. The admission of additional evidence, it goes without saying, is not a matter of course. But so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we are not satisfied that the additional evidence is admitted as a matter of course.
2. In this case the "C" forms were not filed before the assessing authority. They were sought to be filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority refused to receive the same and at the same time commented upon the genuineness of the "C" forms. He expressed an opinion that they are not genuine. In the further appeal before the Tribunal the same evidence was again sought to be adduced by filing a separate petition. The Tribunal accepted the explanation offered by the assessee for not filling the assessing authority. It would of course have been proper if the Tribunal had given reasons more elaborately. But we are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, there has been no violation of regulation 11 of the aforesaid Regulations.
3. We may also mention that the filing of "C" forms is governed by rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The proviso to the said sub-rule empowers the receiving of the said forms beyond the stage prescribed in the said sub-rule. It has also been held that even the appellate authority has power to receive the said forms by way of additional evidence.
4. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150.
5. Petitioner dismissed.