Tax payment evidence must be considered before cancelling registration when later-filed documents go to the root of the dispute.

Cancellation of registration could not be sustained solely because proof of tax payment was not produced before the lower authorities when the record indicated payment and the supporting documents were later filed at the appellate stage. The controversy turned on verification of that payment, so the refusal to consider the material was unjustified. The appeal also could not be dismissed without adequate opportunity to place the relevant evidence on record, particularly where the claim of tax payment went to the root of the dispute. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after considering the documents and the tax payment claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of registration could be sustained when the tax had allegedly been paid but supporting proof was not produced before the authorities below. (ii) Whether the appeal could be dismissed without granting sufficient opportunity to produce evidence of tax payment and supporting documents.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of registration could be sustained when the tax had allegedly been paid but supporting proof was not produced before the authorities below.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had paid the tax, though the proof of payment was not placed before the lower authorities in time. The relevant documents were produced at the appellate stage. In these circumstances, the refusal to interfere solely on the ground of non-production of proof below was not justified, particularly when the material went to the root of the controversy.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could be dismissed without granting sufficient opportunity to produce evidence of tax payment and supporting documents.

Analysis: It was noted that the appellant had sought time before the Tribunal to produce the evidence, and the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that repeated opportunities had earlier been given without compliance. Since the documents were ultimately filed and the asserted tax payment required verification, the matter called for reconsideration on the basis of the additional material.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer for fresh decision after considering the documents and the claim of tax payment, with costs imposed on the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy turns on whether tax has already been paid, the matter should be decided after considering the supporting material, and a fresh adjudication is warranted when relevant evidence is produced at a later stage.

---