JUDGMENT K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J. The Revenue is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The matter relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The respondent is a contractor for supply of metals, rubbles, gravel and sand. The Intelligence Wing of the department found that the respondent-assessee had supplied cobble stone, metal and spalls to M/s. Tarapore and Company for a sum of Rs. 4,43,460.63 during the year 1975-76. The assessing authority issued a notice under section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act to the respondent, making a proposal to determine the total sales in his hands at Rs. 4,87,577 which was arrived at by adding 10 per cent to the sale price of supplied effected to M/s. Tarapore and Company. The addition of 10 per cent was intended to cover the turnover in respect of probable supplied to other parties. The assessee filed an objection, dated 18th February, 1977, to drop the proceedings, since the formalities, like application for registration and filing of returns were not completed. The request was not granted. The assessment was made as proposed. In the appeal the Assistant Commissioner limited the taxable turnover to Rs. 4,43,460.63, the actual cost of supplies to M/s. Tarapore and Company. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The only ground urged before the Appellate Tribunal was that the assessing authority was in error in adopting, as the taxable turnover, the entire amount paid by M/s. Tarapore and Company to the respondent-assessee ignoring the fact that such payment included transporting charges which is evident from the letter of acceptance of the assessee's quotation. To substantiate this fact the appellant's representative filed a copy of the letter dated 10th October, 1974 of M/s. Tarapore and Company, accepting the quotation submitted by the respondent-assessee. In the said letter loading, unloading and transport charges were separately mentioned. Relying on the said record the Appellate Tribunal held that the amount that will be assessable as taxable turnover in the case of the respondent-assessee must be limited to the price for the materials supplied as fixed by M/s. Tarapore and Company in their letter of acceptance and should exclude amounts stipulated for transporting charges, loading and unloading, etc. On this basis, the order of assessment was set aside. On this basis, the order of assessment was set aside. The matter was remitted to the assessing authority for completion of assessment, confined to the value of the materials supplied by the respondent to M/s. Tarapore and Company exclusive of the charges for loading and unloading and transport charges to the site of the company. The Revenue assails the said order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 27th July, 1983 in this tax revision case. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Karunakaran Nambiar, as also counsel for the assessee, Mr. K. P. G. Menon. Mr. Nambiar contended that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in receiving a copy of the letter said to have been issued by M/s. Tarapore and Company to the respondent-assessee, which was produced at the time of hearing, without following the procedure for adducing additional or fresh evidence, contained in the Appellate Tribunal Regulations. It was submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was totally unauthorised and acted without jurisdiction in simply accepting the copy of the letter, which was handed over to it at the time of hearing. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that this is a procedure which is arbitrary and unknown to law. Counsel for the respondent, Mr. K. P. G. Menon submitted that as the final fact finding authority, it is open to the Appellate Tribunal to receive any additional or fresh evidence at the stage of second appeal. In the exercise of the said jurisdiction, there is nothing wrong in the Appellate Tribunal in accepting a letter handed over by the assessee to the Tribunal at the time of hearing. 3. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties we are unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the assessee-respondent. We should say that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal is rather surprising. The Appellate Tribunal was exercising a quasi-judicial function. It is bound to dispose of the appeals before it in accordance with law. In the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966, detailed provisions are enacted as to the circumstances and the manner in which fresh evidence or additional evidence in appeal can be adduced by parties. Regulation No. 48 is to the following effect : "48. Fresh evidence in appeal. In the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966, detailed provisions are enacted as to the circumstances and the manner in which fresh evidence or additional evidence in appeal can be adduced by parties. Regulation No. 48 is to the following effect : "48. Fresh evidence in appeal. - (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Tribunal, but if, (a) the authority, from whose order the appeal is preferred, has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; (b) the party seeking to adduce additional evidence satisfies the 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 the order under appeal was passed; or (c) the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to decide the case or for any other substantial cause; the Tribunal may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. (2) No order for admission of additional evidence shall be passed on the application of any party without affording an opportunity to the opposite party to be heard in the matter. (3) Where additional evidence is allowed or directed to be produced, the Tribunal shall record the reasons for its admission and shall specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined. (4) When either party produces additional evidence, the opposite party shall be entitled to produce rebutting evidence. (5) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Tribunal may either take such evidence or direct the Deputy Commissioner, or any Assistant Commissioner, or any other officer, or Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal to take such evidence in the presence of the parties. The party calling a witness shall examine him in chief and the opposite party may cross-examine him, in which case the party calling may examine the witness in re. (6) The documents proved in appeal shall be exhibited marking 'P' series for the appellant and 'D' series for the respondent and the witnesses, examined shall be separately numbered serially, designating 'PW' & 'DW' respectively. (6) The documents proved in appeal shall be exhibited marking 'P' series for the appellant and 'D' series for the respondent and the witnesses, examined shall be separately numbered serially, designating 'PW' & 'DW' respectively. (7) The evidence of every witness examined before the Tribunal shall be taken down in writing by or in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Tribunal." The Revenue contends that the Appellate Tribunal can admit additional or fresh evidence only if certain conditions are satisfied. There is a further requirement that before admitting additional evidence, the opposite party should be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter and that the Tribunal has to record its reasons for admitting fresh evidence. These provisions have been given a go-by. It is regrettable to note that the Appellate Tribunal has acted in a very casual manner and has accepted a letter passed on to it by the assessee's representative at the time of hearing. We should say that, the statutory provisions enacted in this behalf have been honoured more in their breach than in their observance. That it should be so done by a statutory body like the Appellate Tribunal is indeed a matter for regret. Incidentally we should also state that in rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, there is similar provision. We are of the view that these provisions are intended to see that the Tribunal act fairly and in accordance with the established procedure, consistent with the principles of natural justice. Any deviation in this regard should be viewed with serious concern. We hold that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction in accepting a copy of a letter dated 10th October, 1974, handed over to it by the representative of the assessee. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 27th July, 1983 and remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for de novo consideration and in the light of the observations contained herein. We should state the regulation No. 48 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations as also rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules are similar to Order XLI, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There are innumerable decisions of courts, which lay down the guiding principles governing the admission of additional evidence in appeal. We should state the regulation No. 48 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations as also rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules are similar to Order XLI, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There are innumerable decisions of courts, which lay down the guiding principles governing the admission of additional evidence in appeal. Normally, the Appellate Tribunal is entitled to consider only the records and materials which were produced and/or relied on, before the lower authorities. It is open to the Appellate Tribunal to consider fresh material or record at the appellate stage for the first time, in certain special circumstances and subject to certain limitations. The regulations referred to, similar to Order XLI, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, specify the circumstances and conditions, subject to which it can be so done. It is worthwhile to keep in mind the said guiding principles in the matter of admitting additional or fresh evidence in the appeals irrespective of the fact whether it be produced or relied on, by the assessee or by the Revenue. The tax revision case is disposed of as above. Petition allowed.