THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13639 of 2010 July 27, 2010 Between: M/s.Kedia Vanaspathi Limited, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad represented by its Director, Mr.Umesh Kedia … Petitioner And The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13639 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a manufacturer of edible oils. They are on rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. The CTO inspected the business premises of the petitioner. Having found certain incriminating material in respect of assessment year 2000- 2001, he sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Charminar Division. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice, and after obtaining objections, passed the final assessment order dated 16.3.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, being T.A.No.127 of 2010. While the same was pending, the petitioner filed T.M.P.No.134 of 2010 seeking permission to bring additional evidence on record, under Regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957 (the Regulations). The respondents opposed the application. Considering the rival contentions, by the impugned order dated 30.4.2010, the learned Tribunal dismissed the T.M.P. filed to bring additional evidence on record. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Tribunal, a contention was raised that the petitioner produced G-Forms in proof of evidence that he exported oil and that the same were not considered by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Tribunal verified the record and found that the G-Forms were not disregarded by the Deputy Commissioner. It further found that, at the time of enquiry, the petitioner was not in possession of the documents, which they sought to be produced as additional evidence. Therefore the application was dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner, and the Special Counsel for Commercial Tax, made their submissions. Both the counsel rely on Regulation 11 of the Regulations, which reads as under. 11. Fresh evidence and witnesses: (1) The party or the respondent shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, before the Tribunal, but – (a) if the authority from whose order the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (b) if the party or the respondent seeking to adduce additional evidence satisfies the Appellate Tribunal that such evidence, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at or before the time when the order under appeal was passed, or (c) if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witnesses to be examined to enable it to pass orders, or (d) for any other sufficient reason the Tribunal may allow such evidence or documents to be produced or witneses examined; Provided that the other party shall, in such cases, be entitled to produce rebutting evidence, if any. (2) If the Tribunal is of opinion that any witness should be examined in connection with any case before it, it may, instead of examining him before itself, issue a commission to any Commercial Tax Officer or Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or an Advocate or such other suitable person as it may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case. A plain reading of the Regulation would show that there is absolute prohibition for receiving additional evidence–oral or documentary–when the appeal is heard by the Tribunal. However there are four exceptions as enumerated in clauses (a) to (d). After perusing the record and considering the submissions of petitioner, we are convinced that the plea of the petitioner does not fall in any of the exempted category of cases where additional evidence can be permitted. The impugned order is, therefore, unexceptionable. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) July 27, 2010 YS