1989 (11) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has submitted the statement of the case and sought opinion of this Court on the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in stating that the forms appended to the Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated Mar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tatement of the case. 3.. An appeal was filed against the assessment order before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bilaspur. It was stated that he had supplied a lot of material to the Government Departments after October 1, 1978 and, accordingly, he was entitled for set-off under section 8(1) of the Act. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected his contention saying that the n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....marked as annexure D to the statement of the case. 5.. The only question for consideration that arises in this case is as to whether the Government Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated March 28, 1969, is such a piece of additional evidence as is barred to be produced at any subsequent stage under the provisions of section 39-A of the Act. In the first place, we must emphasise that a notification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould not be produced by him before the assessing authority. As we have already stated above, a statutory instrument having the force of law is not a piece of additional evidence. It is a law of which public notice must be taken of as being operative on the field to which it applies. The question of bar under section 39-A of the Act, therefore, does not arise and the Tribunal (Board) was perfectly ....