- (1.) In all the above revision petitions preferred by the assessees, common question of law is involved, therefore, all these sales tax revisions are heard and decided together by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.296/2011 are taken into consideration. After marathon of litigation with regard to the controversy whether Aluminium foil falling in word sheets , therefore, covered under the notification dated 31.12.1975 and, further, whether the notification dated 13.06.1985 issued by the Revenue is applicable for the purpose of granting exemption for five years commencing from 13.06.1985, the day on which the notification was issued by the Revenue.
(2.) Before entering into the merit of the case, it is appropriate to observe that after marathon of litigation, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court delivered a judgment on 08.01.2007 in S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision No.1274/2002 and other revisions which is reported in 116 Tax Update 17 Pt. 3. In that judgment, orders passed by the Tax Board dated 08.02.1999, 27.02.2002 and 15.06.2002 were under challenge. The co-ordinate Bench remitted the matter to the Tax Board vide aforesaid judgment and following directions were given for deciding the controversy involved in this case : In these facts and circumstances, it appears that the very foundation of the order dated 8.2.1999 is the additional evidence produced by the assessee and the pleas taken by the assessee on the basis of those documents and the Tax Board relied upon those documents without affording an opportunity of hearing to the revenue nor gave any opportunity to the revenue to produce evidence to rebut the documentary evidence by the assessee and the Tax Board's order dated 8.2.1999 is based on the evidence produced by the assessee, therefore, only on this ground alone, the order of the Tax Board dated 8.2.1999 deserves to be set aside in the revisions preferred by the revenue to challenge the impugned orders passed in final assessment proceedings for the years 1982 to 1986.
(3.) When facts are glaring and are apparent from the record of the Tax Board, the revenue cannot be denied opportunity to meet with the evidence produced by the assessee at the back of revenue and, therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be held that the department consciously waived objection about consideration of additional evidence produced by the assessee before the Tax Board while deciding appeals no.8 to 11/1995 by judgment/order dated 8.2.1999 merely because the revenue failed to take objection in the memo of revision petition. Even if the department was not vigilant in looking into the record of the Tax Board, then also for this, the department cannot be denied opportunity to meet with the evidence produced by the assessee at the back of revenue. Therefore, the question of law no.9 is decided against the assessee and the question of law no.8 is decided in favour of the revenue.;