TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (S. Ganesh, Ravinder Narain, Rajan Narain, Mrs. Sonu Bhatnagar and Sajan Narain, Advocate, with him), for the appellants. T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (K.H. Nobin Singh and M. Veerappa, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in writ appeals is challenged, with special leave, by the assessee. During the course of the argument on 13th August, 1996, we found that the Division Bench had proceeded upon the basis that Government Order No. CI 138 SPC 90(P), dated September 27, 1990, had not been published in the State Government Gazette. The reason for doing so was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a Government Order relating to his own department was not gazetted, when it was. It was either done out of gross negligence or deliberately to mislead the court. Having regard to the seriousness of what is involved, we direct that an affidavit in regard both to the compliance with section 39 and in regard to the Deputy Commissioner's affidavit be put on affidavit to be made by the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka. This shall be done within 3 weeks from today. One week, thereafter, is given to the appellants to file an affidavit in reply thereto. The matter is adjourned for 4 weeks. This shall be treated as part-heard. The State Government Gazette dated March 7, 1991 is marked as exhibit 'A' and shall be treated as a part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct of Sri R. Krishna Murthy in making the statement which he did not know to be false at the time of its being made, leads me to conclude that there had been no wilful intention to mislead the honourable High Court of Karnataka". Again, "In view of the above, I respectfully submit that I am of the opinion that there was no gross negligence or any deliberate intention to mislead the honourable High Court on the part of Sri R. Krishna Murthy". (Emphasis supplied). The said officer has also made an affidavit, in which he apologises and seeks pardon for his bona fide and unintended mistake. It was, he states, his genuine impression that if the said Government order had been published in the State Government Gazette, it would have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resented by its Chief Secretary, does not find the said officer guilty of gross negligence. The Chief Secretary does not find it unpardonable that the statement was made on oath on behalf of the State Government in a pending proceeding before the High Court. We cannot agree. Whether the Chief Secretary thinks it necessary to take action against the said officer or not is not our concern. Our concern is that the State Government made a statement on oath before the High Court that was incorrect and the judgment of the High Court accepts and proceeds upon the basis of that statement. The High Court's judgment must, therefore, be set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court to be heard and decided afresh. We must caution the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
