Tax appellate additional evidence requires lawful admission and a fair chance for rebuttal before exemption can be sustained.

Exemption on disputed turnover could not be sustained where the dealer had not proved that the supporting documents were filed before the assessing authority or first appellate authority, and the Tribunal relied on them without proper proof of earlier production. Additional evidence in tax appellate proceedings cannot be acted upon unless it is lawfully admitted under the prescribed procedure and the department is given a fair opportunity to rebut it. Because those safeguards were not followed, reliance on the documents was impermissible and the Tribunal's order was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh decision on the exemption claim in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether exemption on the disputed turnover could be sustained on the basis of documents allegedly not filed before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority; (ii) whether reliance on such additional evidence could be made without complying with the procedure for admitting additional evidence and giving the department an opportunity to rebut it.

Issue (i): whether exemption on the disputed turnover could be sustained on the basis of documents allegedly not filed before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The accepted position before the lower authorities was that the dealer had not produced evidence to substantiate the claim for exemption. The Tribunal, however, relied on agreements said to have been submitted and granted exemption on that basis. In the absence of proof that such evidence had been filed before the earlier authorities, the finding that the exemption was established could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The exemption granted on the disputed turnover was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether reliance on such additional evidence could be made without complying with the procedure for admitting additional evidence and giving the department an opportunity to rebut it.

Analysis: Under the governing appellate procedure, additional evidence could be admitted only if the requisite conditions for its production were satisfied, and if admitted, the opposite party had to be given an opportunity to meet it. No order showed that the Tribunal had validly admitted the alleged documents, and no opportunity was afforded to the department to rebut them. Reliance on such material without following the prescribed procedure was impermissible.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not rely on the documents without complying with the procedural safeguards for additional evidence.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the exempted turnover question in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in tax appellate proceedings cannot be relied upon unless it is lawfully admitted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the opposite party is given a fair opportunity to rebut it.

---