The judgment of a Criminal Court is not binding on quasi-judicial tribunals, such as the Tribunal in the present case, to which the provisions of the Evidence Act do not in terms apply.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions arise out of the order of the Andhra Sales tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of assessments made by the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, Tadipatri, on the petitioner for the two years 1952-53 and 1953-54. The sales-Tax Authorities having held that the return of the turnover was not true, estimated the turnover and assessed him on a total turnover of Rs. 12,452-6-1 for 1952-53; and Rs. 10,353-9-6 for 1953-54. The orders of the Commercial Tax Officers were confirmed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal discloses that the assessee only argued before them two questions, viz. , that they were petty dealers and that the writing found in the books and letters found in their business place were those of an insane son of the dealer and that they should not be relied upon. The arguments were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed. Hence the revisions.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee argued that before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee it was contended that the District Magistrate, Gooty, in C. C. No. 73 of 1955, on his file held that the bpoks, on the basis of which the assessement was made, did not belong to the assessee and that finding was binding on the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal omitted to consider that point. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals on the 31st October, 1955. The District Magistrate delivered the judgment on 15th June, 1955. In the memorandum of grounds filed in this Court, the petitioner alleged that this point had been taken before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal did not give its decision thereon. The Government Pleader, though he says that the record does not disclose any such point was made or the said judgment was filed, is not in a position to assert that this point was not in fact raised before the Tribunal at the time of the arguments. In the circumstances, we think that in the interests of justice it is necessary that the Tribunal should be asked to submit findings on the following two points : 1. Whether, as a matter of fact, the petitioner placed before the Tribunal, the judgment of the Criminal Court and argued on the basis of it ? 2. Whether the finding of the District Magistrate in C. C. No. 73 of 1955 is binding on the Tribunal, and if so, what is the effect of that finding on the assessment ?

( 3 ) THE Tribunal is directed to submit the finding within one month from the receipt of the records. One week thereafter for objections. In pursuance of the above order, the Andhra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal hyderabad (Deccan) submitted the FINDING. [finding omitted. "]. These petitions coming on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the Andhra Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad the Order of the Court was made by Ranganadham Chetty, J.

( 4 ) ON 22nd November, 1956, the High Court called from the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal findings on the following points : 1. Whether, as a matter of fact, the petitioner placed before the Tribunal the judgment of the Criminal Court and argued on the basis of it ? 2. Whether the finding of the District Magistrate in C. C. No. 73 of 1955 is binding on the Tribunal, and if so, what is the effect of that finding on the assessment ? the Tribunal has submitted that no certified copy of the judgment of the Criminal court ws filed before them, that only a private copy of the judgment was sent by post with a covering memo praying for interim stay until the disposal of the appeal and that not even a petition was filed to admit the judgment in evidence at the hearing of the appeal. In the circumstances, says the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the judgment was formally brought to their notice or that arguments were addressed regarding effect of the judgment on the assessment proceedings.

( 5 ) IT is contended before us, on behalf of the assessees, that even at the hearing of the appeal arguments were addressed to the Tribunal. Evidently the Tribunal declined to consider the point in the absence of a cert