BABULAL CHHAPOLIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three special jurisdiction cases the following two questions have been referred to this Court for opinion by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal.

(2.) THE assessee was assessed to sales tax for three quarters ending on 30th June, 1954, 30th September, 1954 and 31st December, 1954. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax took into consideration some additional documents filed by the assessee and reduced the assessment. When the matter was taken up on second appeal before the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, the learned Member set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner for the following reasons (as stated by him) :-

(3.) IN this connection the difference between the procedures to be adopted by the Assistant Commissioner as the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax 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 where no such limitation is found in the procedure to be adopted by the first appellate authority as prescribed in sub-rule (2) of rule 50, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was not justified in saying, as a proposition of law, that the first appellate authority should not have admitted an entirely new question to be raised for the first time before him. The question is ultimately one of discretion conferred on him by the rules, and no limitation can be placed on that discretion.