AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Doabia, J.
Heard Counsel.
The petitioner submits that ''C'' Forms had become available by the time, a revision was filed before the authorities under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further submits that these were brought on the record but were not taken into consideration. The petitioner places reliance on Section 39A of the Act. This reads as under :
"39-A. Additional evidence on appeal or revision. - A dealer shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary before the appellate or revising authority except where the evidence sought to be adduced is evidence, which the assessing authority had wrongly refused to admit or which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him before the assessing authority or for the production of which adequate time was not given by the assessing authority and in every such case upon the additional evidence being taken on record reasonable opportunity for challenge or rebuttal shall be given to the Commissioner."
Strictly speaking, the petitioner had an alternate remedy and he should have pursued the same. However, as there is no dispute regarding facts and, as, ''C'' Forms were duly placed before the revisional authority and, as these were not taken into consideration, in breach of Section 39-A of the Act, a direction is given to the respondent No. 2 to take notice of the ''C'' Forms and grant such benefit as is permissible under the law. The respondent No. 2 shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months. The period of two months would begin from the date copy of order passed by this Court along with writ petition and annexures is made available to the above authority.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.