SIMPLEX ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD , Shri Mehta by pointing out a letter written to Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Mazgaon, Bombay dated 10/10/1997 submitted that the petitioners repeatedly sought for the production of the documents seized by Sales Tax Department in the raid but his request was not granted. He further submitted that though such request was made to the A.O., he did not pay any heed to it and proceeded further with disposing of the claim of the revenue against the petitioners. He submitted further that the Revisional Authority also did not look into this genuine grievance of the petitioners and proceeded further in passing order rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. Shri Mehta submitted that thus the order passed by A.O. and Revisional Authority are the orders passed against the petitioners without hearing them and, therefore, those orders are "ex parte" orders. He submitted that, the order passed by the Revisional Authority needs to be set aside, so also the order which has been passed by A.O. and A.O. needs to be directed to reassess the case of the petitioners again after providing them sufficient opportunity of producing the record of Silvasa Branch which has been seized by the Sales Tax Department and an appropriate writ be granted in favour of the petitioners by admitting this petition for final hearing.

(2.) SHRI Desai submitted that so far as Income Tax Department is concerned, the order of A.O. shows that on number of occasions the hearing was adjourned and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce the documents pertaining to Silvasa Branch in context of the points raised by them denying the claim of revenue about the payment of tax from them. He submitted that the word "ex parte", which has been used by the Counsel for the petitioners is used in respect of the order which has been passed without giving notice. But in this case that is not so. The petitioners were given a notice. Not only that, they participated in the hearing, sought adjournments on various occasions and adjournments were granted. But even then, they did not produce any document pertaining to the seizure by the Sales Tax Department. He pointed out that maximum efforts were made for the purpose of getting the said record produced from the Sales Tax Department. Leaving aside this aspect, Shri Desai submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to obtain the appropriate copies of the documents on which they were placing reliance before the Income Tax Authorities. But nothing was done. Therefore, according to Shri Desai the grievance which has been put forth in this petition by the petitioners is nothing but an afterthought excuse.

(3.) BOTH Shri Desai and Shri Sawant submitted that this petition be not admitted and should be dismissed.