Additional grounds and restaurant sales tax liability hinge on judicial discretion, transaction substance, and constitutional validation limits.

An appellate authority may admit additional grounds in its discretion because no express bar prevented consideration of issues not originally disputed, subject to judicially guided exercise of power. The restaurant-sales question also required fresh examination in light of the later Supreme Court ruling: the taxing authority had to test whether the transaction was in substance a sale of food with services merely incidental, and the Forty-sixth Amendment validated only existing levies under the local law, not a broader charge beyond the statute's coverage. The Tribunal's orders were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration on the applicable legal position.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority could entertain additional grounds relating to a turnover not originally disputed in the appeal; (ii) whether the assessment of the restaurant transactions required reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court's later ruling and the Forty-sixth Amendment.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority could entertain additional grounds relating to a turnover not originally disputed in the appeal.

Analysis: The governing provisions did not impose any express embargo on the appellate authority's power to admit additional grounds. The power was discretionary and had to be exercised judicially, taking into account relevant factors, including limitation where applicable. The earlier rigid view against such admission had been overruled.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not barred from entertaining additional grounds; the power to admit them existed, subject to judicial discretion.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment of the restaurant transactions required reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court's later ruling and the Forty-sixth Amendment.

Analysis: The later Supreme Court ruling required the taxing authority to ascertain, on the facts, whether the substance of the restaurant transaction was a sale of food with services being merely incidental. The constitutional amendment validated only those State laws which had already imposed or authorised the levy; it did not itself expand the scope of a State enactment that had not specifically covered such transactions. Since the relevant issue had to be examined in the light of the later ruling and the local law position, the Tribunal's decision could not stand without fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration on merits with reference to the later Supreme Court ruling and the validating amendment.

Final Conclusion: The common orders of the Tribunal were set aside and both revisions were allowed by remand for reconsideration on the legal position applicable to restaurant supplies.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority may admit additional grounds in its discretion, and restaurant transactions must be tested on their dominant object and the substance of the transaction when determining sales tax liability, while constitutional validation does not extend a State levy beyond what its law expressly covered.

---