N. D. OJHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner carries on business of transporting goods from one State to another. On 18th july, 1986, at Srinagar Check Post certain goods loaded on the truck of the petitioner were seized on the ground that relevant documents had not been produced at the check post. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, thereupon, made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, check Post, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, respondent No. 2, under Section 13-A (6) of the U. P. Sales tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner sought permission to produce the relevant documents in regard to the consignment in question which could not be produced by the driver at the check post. The case of the petitioner was that these documents had by mistake been left by the driver at the Nagpur office of the petitioner and they had subsequently been received at the Kanpur office. The Assistant Commissioner refused to accept those documents and held that since those documents were not produced at the check post it could not be said with any amount of certainty that they were left by mistake at Nagpur. ( 3 ) AS the respondents are represented by their standing counsel and there is no private party to be served, on the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be decided finally at this very stage as contemplated by second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. We have accordingly heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents on the merits of the case. ( 4 ) AS seen above, the Assistant Commissioner refused to accept the documents which were sought to be filed by the petitioner before him in proceedings under Section 13-A (6) without assigning any reason whatsoever. When it was the petitioners specific case that these documents had by mistake been left by the driver at Nagpur, the Assistant Commissioner should have accepted those documents in order to satisfy himself whether they related to the consignment in question or not and unless he did so, he could not come to any definite conclusion as to whether these documents were left at Nagpur by mistake or not. The Assistant Commissioner was not exercising any appellate power while considering his representation under Section 13-A (6) and consequently the provisions of Section 12-B of the Act were not applicable. Moreover, even if the said Section was applicable, it permits acceptance of additional evidence if, inter alia, it was established that the documents could not be produced by the applicant before the trial authority. Here the case of the petitioner specifically was that the documents in question could not be produced at the check post barrier because they had been left by mistake at Nagpur. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 1st August, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. ( 5 ) IN the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 1st august, 1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax. Check Post, Jhansi Division, jhansi, respondent No. 2, is quashed and he is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner under Section 13-A (6) of the Act afresh after accepting and taking into consideration the documents which were sought to be filed by the petitioner before him. The question as to whether these documents are relevant for the consignment in question or not, will of course, have to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner after accepting them. Since the goods which were seized are stated by counsel for the petitioner to be perishable, the Assistant Commissioner shall decide the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of this order within a week of the production of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order may be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner today on payment of necessary charges. .