9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-11 whose assessments were completed on 12th December, 2014. Petitioner contended that pursuant to the Appellate Order dated 28th August, 2015 (Annexure-3) reassessment was done vide order dated 17th March, 2016 finding excess amount paid by the petitioner-assessee. The present proceedings seek to reopen a concluded assessment much beyond the period of three years. [3] Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 28th November, 2024, this Court allowed time to learned counsel for the State Mr. P. Gautam to seek instructions. This Court also persuaded by the legal plea raised by the petitioner of bar of reopening assessment on grounds of limitation, stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice dated 18th October, 2024 (Annexure-5) in the meantime. What has come on record by way of counter-affidavit of the respondents No. 2 and 3 are quite stark and staring on the face of the pleadings of the writ petition since the writ petitioner has completely suppressed the factum of revisional proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Taxes under Section 70 (1) of the TVAT Act in which the petitioner also appeared and partici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther it was issued in accordance with the directions of the Revisional Authority as per the order passed in the revision case. The dealer i.e. the writ petitioner had also appeared before the Revisional Authority on few occasions. The notice dated 18th October, 2024 itself reflects that the same was issued as per the order of the Revisional Authority. Copy of the appearance slip and the copy of order dated 27th October, 2022 are annexed to the counter affidavit. [6] Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel for the State submits that second reassessment proceedings based on audit report is not illegal. The dealer-writ petitioner was afforded opportunities for hearing by the revisional court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not valid. Moreover, the order dated 27th October, 2022 is not under challenge. Learned counsel for the State vehemently submits that the writ petitioner has completely failed to mention about the suo-moto revisional proceedings in which the dealer-petitioner himself participated and the order dated 27th October, 2022 directing the Superintendent of Taxes to undertake reassessment. This amounts to a clear case of suppression of facts. The jurisdiction of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countenanced. 11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, (2007) 8 SCC 449] has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus : (SCC p. 461, para 33) "33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (KB & CA)] , Viscount Reading, C.J. observed : (KB pp. 495-96) '... Where an ex-parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
