Amended trade tax rate and appellate additional evidence rules governed the disputed turnover and declaration certificate.

Amended trade tax notification reducing the rate for old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete machinery, stores or vehicles had to be applied for the relevant assessment period, so taxing the disputed turnover at 10% was unsustainable and the correct rate was 4%. Section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act permits additional evidence at the appellate stage where statutory conditions are met, and a declaration certificate issued after the first appellate order could not be rejected merely for delay; it ought to have been considered. The matter was remanded for a fresh order in light of these findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether old, discarded and unserviceable goods were taxable at 4% under the amended notification, and not at 10%; (ii) Whether the declaration certificate produced at the appellate stage could be accepted as additional evidence under Section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether old, discarded and unserviceable goods were taxable at 4% under the amended notification, and not at 10%.

Analysis: The rate entry for old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete machinery, stores or vehicles was covered by the notification issued on 07.09.1981 and the amendment made on 31.03.1992 substituted the earlier rate with 4% from 01.04.1992. The relevant assessment period was 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998, and the authorities below had not given effect to the amended notification.

Conclusion: The correct rate applicable to the disputed turnover was 4%, and the addition of tax at 10% was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration certificate produced at the appellate stage could be accepted as additional evidence under Section 12B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 12B permits additional evidence before the appellate authority or Tribunal where the evidence was wrongly refused by the assessing authority or could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. The declaration certificate was issued only after the first appellate order and was produced thereafter. On these facts, rejection of the claim merely on the ground of delay was not justified.

Conclusion: The declaration certificate ought to have been considered as additional evidence, and the refusal to grant the benefit was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The revision was accepted on the substantive questions and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh order in accordance with the findings recorded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended tax notification reduces the applicable rate for a covered class of goods during the relevant assessment period, the amended rate must be applied; and additional evidence may be received at the appellate stage if it satisfies the statutory conditions for admission.

---