JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) IN this reference under Section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Board of Revenue has submitted the statement of the case and sought opinion of this Court on the following question : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in stating that the forms appended to the Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated March 28, 1969, can be produced at any time even though Section 39-A bars the acceptance of additional evidence at appellate or revisional level ?" ( 2. ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be culled from the statement of the case itself. The assessee is a dealer in paints, hardware, etc. He had maintained only a register and bills for purchases and sales. He had filed the returns, though some days late. Since he had not maintained regular accounts, a best judgment assessment was made and the turnover was assessed at Rs. 1,10,000 under Section 18 (4) (d) of the Act. A deduction of Rs. 41,000 was allowed under Section 2 (r) (ii) of the Act and taxable turnover was estimated at Rs. 69,000. A copy of the assessment order dated December 2, 1980, has been marked as annexure B to the statement of the case. ( 3. ) AN appeal was filed against the assessment order before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bilaspur. It was stated that he had supplied a lot of material to the Government Departments after October 1, 1978 and, accordingly, he was entitled for set-off under Section 8 (1) of the Act. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected his contention saying that the necessary certificates from the Government Departments were not appended in the case. A copy of the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner dated June 18, 1982, has been marked as annexure C to the statement of the case. ( 4. ) THE assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. It was argued that the forms appended to the Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated March 28, 1969, were not produced before the assessing officer but it could be done subsequently and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had erred in rejecting the certificate. ( 4. ) THE assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. It was argued that the forms appended to the Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated March 28, 1969, were not produced before the assessing officer but it could be done subsequently and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had erred in rejecting the certificate. It was held by the Tribunal that these forms could be produced at any time and it is necessary to take them into consideration. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the assessing officer. A copy of the Tribunals order dated January 16, 1984, has been marked as annexure D to the statement of the case. ( 5. ) THE only question for consideration that arises in this case is as to whether the Government Notification No. 966-655-V-ST dated March 28, 1969, is such a piece of additional evidence as is barred to be produced at any subsequent stage under the provisions of Section 39-A of the Act. In the first place, we must emphasise that a notification published in the Official Gazette is not a factual piece of evidence but is a part of law which has to be considered by any one dealing with the subject-matter of that notification within the area in which it is operative. A statutory provision or statutory instrument having the force of law can by no stretch of imagination be equated with a piece of evidence the nature of which has been barred under the provisions of Section 39-A of the Act. Section 39-A enjoins that a dealer shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary before the appellate or revising authority except where the evidence sought to be adduced is evidence, which the assessing authority had wrongly refused to admit or which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him before the assessing authority. As we have already stated above, a statutory instrument having the force of law is not a piece of additional evidence. It is a law of which public notice must be taken of as being operative on the field to which it applies. As we have already stated above, a statutory instrument having the force of law is not a piece of additional evidence. It is a law of which public notice must be taken of as being operative on the field to which it applies. The question of bar under Section 39-A of the Act, therefore, docs not arise and the Tribunal (Board) was perfectly justified in taking notice of the notification along with the forms appended to that notification, which, for all practical purposes, must be deemed to be a part of the notification itself. It is needless to go into the question as to whether in such circumstances, Section 39-A of the Act could at all come into play or not. We, therefore, need not go into any other academic question and must answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the learned counsel for the Revenue has very fairly accepted the legal position that the case must be decided against the Revenue, we shall not make any order as to costs.