Court affirms acceptance of C forms for assessment, rejects revenue's arguments.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming that declarations in form C were indeed presented before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The court upheld the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal's decision to accept the C forms for assessment, emphasizing that this did not constitute admitting additional evidence without proper procedure. The revenue's arguments were dismissed, and the Tribunal's directives were upheld, resulting in a judgment in favor of the assessee with costs awarded. The decision was supported by both judges, Misra, C.J., and Behera, J.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether declarations in form C were produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales TaxRs.
2. Whether the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was correct in law to accept the C forms and direct the Sales Tax Officer to receive and scrutinize them for assessment to taxRs.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an assessee who dispatched myrobalan outside the State, claiming no sales tax was leviable as purchase tax had been paid. The Assistant Commissioner initially accepted this claim, but the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal overturned it, finding sales tax was indeed leviable. However, the Tribunal also noted that the assessee had attempted to produce declarations in C forms for reduced tax rates, which were not considered in the first appeal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to consider the reduced tax rate claim, leading to the current reference.

2. The standing counsel argued that no declarations were attempted to be produced before the second appeal, and additional evidence should not have been accepted without a formal application. However, the court found no affidavit challenging the facts, and the assessee's conduct, as shown in a memorandum of cross-objection, supported the Tribunal's findings. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to consider the declarations in form C, as the evidence was admissible and had been excluded by the Assistant Commissioner during the appeal.

3. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the declarations in form C were indeed produced before the Assistant Commissioner, and the State could not dispute this at the current stage. Additionally, the Tribunal's direction to entertain the C forms and dispose of them in accordance with the law was deemed correct. The court clarified that this did not amount to accepting additional evidence under the relevant rules, as no formal application for such evidence was necessary in this case.

4. In conclusion, both questions raised by the revenue were answered against them, affirming the Tribunal's decisions regarding the production of declarations in form C and the directive to consider them for assessment. The assessee was awarded costs, and the judgment was concurred by both judges, Misra, C.J., and Behera, J.

---