Late production of C forms in tax appeal requires due diligence and proof that earlier filing was beyond the assessee's control.

Additional evidence in sales tax appeal, including C forms, may be received after assessment only where the record is affected by a procedural defect or where the assessee proves due diligence and that earlier production was prevented by reasons beyond control. Mere late procurement of the forms is insufficient; the appellate authority must first record the necessary finding on absence of negligence before granting relief. The tribunal's unconditional acceptance of the C forms was disapproved because it did not apply that jurisdictional test, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the correct legal basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could be allowed to produce C forms at the appellate stage and have the delayed production excused, notwithstanding the absence of any procedural defect in the assessment; (ii) whether the appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to direct acceptance of the C forms or condone the delay in their production.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could be allowed to produce C forms at the appellate stage and have the delayed production excused, notwithstanding the absence of any procedural defect in the assessment.

Analysis: The power to receive C forms after assessment is not unrestricted. Where the assessment record is incomplete because of a procedural error, additional evidence may be received to correct the defect. Even where there is no procedural error, the appellate authority may permit late production only if the assessee shows that, despite due diligence, the forms could not be produced earlier and that the delay was caused by reasons beyond his control. Mere lapse of time or a general request for further opportunity is not enough.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to a further opportunity merely on the footing that the forms were later obtained; the matter required a finding on due diligence and absence of negligence.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to direct acceptance of the C forms or condone the delay in their production.

Analysis: The appellate tribunal's powers are wide, but they are exercised within the limits governing reception of additional evidence. Those powers may be invoked either to cure a procedural error in the assessment or, independently, where the assessee proves that non-production was beyond his control and without negligence. The tribunal in this case did not address that essential inquiry and proceeded as if a further opportunity could be granted without first satisfying that jurisdictional requirement. The reference to rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 did not apply to the facts, and the matter had to be reconsidered on the correct legal basis.

Conclusion: The tribunal could not direct acceptance of the C forms or condone the delay without first recording the necessary finding on due diligence and absence of negligence.

Final Conclusion: The order of the tribunal was set aside and the appeal was sent back for fresh consideration, with opportunity to the assessee to explain the circumstances of non-production of the C forms; the revenue succeeded to the extent that the tribunal's unconditional direction was disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in tax appeal may be received only when the assessment suffers from a procedural defect or when the assessee establishes that the evidence could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier and the delay was without negligence.

---