The court held that additional evidence forms can be accepted at the appellate level if justified, affirming that unnecessary taxation should be avoided in line with legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 139 of 2022 relates to the Assessment Year 2009-10 under the UP VAT Act, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 140 of 2022 relates to the Assessment Year 2008-09 under the UP VAT Act and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 141 relates to the Assessment Year 2010-11 under the UP VAT Act. Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 139 of 2022 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 139 of 2022

3. The present revision has been filed against the impugned judgement and order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur in Second Appeal No. 174/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10.

4. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2023 on the following questions of law:-

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in, rejecting the Form E - 1 and C, filed along with application for filing additional evidence, as not filed before the tribunal?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in dismissed the appeal, without considering that the application for additional evidence was already on record and a report from assessing authority was sought by the Tribunal?"

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Private Limited Company and registered under the UP VAT Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the normal course of business, the applicant made inter-State stock transfer, against which Forms F, E-1 and C were issued. The aforesaid Forms F and E-1 are to be collected from the branch or dealers situated outside the State of U.P. On 30.04.2013, the Assessing Authority passed the assessment order imposing tax of Rs. 1,59,919/-. He further submits that at the time of passing the order assessment order, the said forms could not be produced in spite of the best efforts and the same were submitted before the authorities below at the appellate stage. He further submits that the first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority have erred in passing the impugned orders dated 20.06.2017 and 22.02.2019. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Hindon River Mills Limited v. CTT [2008 (37) NTN DX 149]. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal has not considered that the applicant - assessee has filed Form E-1 and C along with the application as additional evidence and without deciding the application for additional evidence, the claim of the applicant has been rejected in an illegal manner. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the settled legal position that Forms E-1 and C can be filed at the appellate forum and the benefit of the same should be given on late filing if sufficient cause is shown and therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He prays for allowing the revision.

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the applicant was required to submit the forms as prescribed under the law, but the same have not been submitted. The proceedings have rightly been initiated against the applicant and the authorities b