TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (10) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t assigning the reason for such acceptance?" 2.. The assessee is a registered dealer. The relevant periods are the quarter ending 31st March, 1973, and the year 1973-74. The assessee applied for registration on 2nd January, 1973, but the certificate of registration was actually granted on 26th April, 1973. The Sales Tax Officer made the assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1973, under section 12(5) of the Act. For the year 1973-74, the claim of deduction advanced by the assessee on account of sales to registered dealers was rejected. In first appeal, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of deduction in respect of both the periods under section 5(2)(A)(a)(ii) of the Act by accepting the declarations furnished at the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration certificate on 2nd January, 1973, and it was granted to him on 26th April, 1973. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack, Orissa v. Brijraj Rameshwar [1966] 17 STC 295 (SC) and Chandra Industries v. Punjab State [1972] 29 STC 558. There is nothing on record as to when actually the respondent had applied for registration certificate. That apart, no appeal has been preferred by the respondent against the orders of the lower forums. So, in such circumstances, the aforesaid contention is without any substance." In this case, the question relating to acceptance of declarations has only been referred and the other question has not been stated. 3.. Rule 27(2)(i) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Commissioner as the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax *Here italicised. Tribunal as the second appellate authority may be noticed. The statutory provisions dealing with the procedure to be adopted by the Sales Tax Tribunal are set out in rules 56 to 72. Before the Tribunal there are two parties and rule 58 requires that notice should issue to the opposite party and rule 61 imposes certain restrictions on the right of a party to adduce additional evidence on lines similar to Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. If therefore before the Sales Tax Tribunal additional evidence is to be taken, notice must be given to the other side and that party may have to be given a reasonable opportunity of adducing rebutting evidence. But....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od reason deductions though claimed could not be supported by production of declarations at the assessment stage. In the absence of any prohibition they can be certainly produced as evidence before the first appellate authority and in view of what has been said by the Supreme Court in the case reported in State of Orissa v. Babu Lal Chappolia [1966] 18 STC 17 (SC), such additional evidence could be received by the first appellate authority. In a suitable case, such declarations can even be produced as additional evidence before the Tribunal in second appeal after complying with the requirements of rule 61 of the Rules. It is in the discretion of the appellate authority to accept the evidence produced in support of the claim in appeal. The ....