JUDGMENT Dr. R. R. Misra, J. - The petitioner is a Bhumidhar of certain agricultural plots. He also carries on the business of manufacturing khandsari sugar. He was granted a licence for crushing season 1982-83. This is a case in which the petitioner had to pay the purchase tax only on the sugarcane crushed by him. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to number of days in which the petitioner's unit worked. The petitioner, however, raised a claim before the Khandsari Inspector that he is not liable to pay any tax under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to the sugarcane produced by him on his plots. The petitioner was unable to produce any evidence before the Khandsari Inspector in support of his assertion that he had crushed the sugarcane which was produced in his own agricultural plots. After a notice of demand was served by the Khandsari Inspector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the respondent No. 1, and also filed certain documents in proof of his assertion that he had crushed sugarcane which belonged to his own agricultural plots. Copies of the aforesaid evidence and letters have been filed by the petitioner as Annexures Nos. 1', 3' and 6' to the writ petition. Under the impugned orders, which are identical, and copies of which have been filed as Annexures Nos. 7' and 8' to the writ petition, the appellate authority, the respondent No. 1, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner solely on the ground that since the petitioner had not filed evidence with regard to sugarcane produced by him on his agricultural plots before the Khandsari Inspector, the same was not liable to be considered by him. 2. I have heard learned counsel of the parties. Section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act is the charging section. Under this section tax is levied on the purchase of sugarcane by the owner of the Unit. Admittedly, there is no liability to pay purchase tax in respect of the sugarcane produced by the petitioner on his own agricultural land. Section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act is the charging section. Under this section tax is levied on the purchase of sugarcane by the owner of the Unit. Admittedly, there is no liability to pay purchase tax in respect of the sugarcane produced by the petitioner on his own agricultural land. A perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed under the Act shows that there is no bar provided by law on the admission of additional evidence at the time of the hearing of the appeal by the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 suffer from a manifest error of law and are liable to be set aside. 3. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned orders passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexures Nos. 7 and 8) to the writ petition) are thus quashed with a direction to the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) to consider the additional evidence produced by the parties before him at the time of the hearing of the appeal on merits and proceed in accordance with law.