SHANTI FRAGRANES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4th March, 2 0 0 8 , the following Order was passed in the above Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9228 of 2005:

(2.) Today when the above Special Leave Petition came before this Court for further action to be taken, Mr. Sorabji learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of deponent Director of M/s Shanti Fragrances stated that the deponent/contemnor acted without any intent to mislead the High Court. However, learned Counsel fairly stated that in such cases Courts are right in taking appropriate action for not complying with requirements of disclosing relevant facts in the Writ Petitions. Learned Counsel fairly stated that as a matter of first chance Shri Krishn a Chaurasi a may be penalised with a fine, particularly, when he assures the Court that in future such mis- statements in the Writ Petition as mentioned in Order of this Court dated 4th March, 2008 would not be made by him in Court proceedings. Mr. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel further states that Shri Chaurasi a tenders unconditional apology to this Court which is hereby accepted on the condition that he will deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with the Registry within four weeks from today, as fine. It may further be stated that Shri Chaurasia is present in Court pursuant to our earlier Order dated 4th March, 2008. The said amount will be paid over by the Registry to the National Association for the Blind, Mumbai.

(3.) Before concluding we may mention that in matters after matters, particularly, involving revenue we find suppression of the relevant fact before the High Court as well as before this Court as to whether assessee has invoked statutory remedy. Apart from suppression of facts, even misleading statements are sometimes made in that regard. We wish to clarify that in every matter, be it the assessee or the department, it would be necessary to state specifically in the Writ Petition/ Special Leave Petition whether proceedings are pending before the departmental authorities. Similarly, if the assessee invokes statutory remedy pending the Writ Petition even then the assessee/department shall say so by way of a counter affidavit or additional affidavit pending such Writ Petition. The object underlying this direction is that the High Court should be told as to whether the assessee has exhausted the statutory remedy under the respective Tax Laws as non- disclosure of such relevant facts may warrant the dismiss al of the Writ Petition before the High Court.