1. Challenge to High Court judgment based on an incorrect statement on oath regarding the publication of a Government Order under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1653
1996(8) Supreme 391
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha & S.C. Sen, JJ.
M/s. Lipton India Ltd. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5425-5429 of 1994
Decided on 8-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, S. Ganesh, Ravinder Narain, Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Sajan Narain, Advocates. for M/s J.B.D. & Co.
For the Respondents : T.L. Vishwantha Iyer, Sr. Advocate, K.H. Nobin Singh, and M. Veerappa, Advocates.
Important Points
A judgment based on a false statement made on oath by a government official must be set aside. The Court cautioned that High Courts should be vigilant in accepting statements made on behalf of the State Government to prevent the judiciary from being misled.
Subject
Judicial Review - Misrepresentation to the Court
Act Referred
Headnote
WRIT APPEAL-Division Bench of High Court proceeded upon basis that Government Order had not been published in State Government Gazette-Said order had, infact, been published in the Gazette-High Court Judgment was liable to be set aside and to be remanded for fresh decision-High Court cautioned to be vigilant in accepting as correct a statement, even though made on oath, on behalf of state Government-State to pay to appellants costs quantified in Rs. 50000/-. (Paras 2 & 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contended that an incorrect statement made on oath was a bona fide mistake without intent to mislead the court. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court observed that a statement made on oath by a government officer was incorrect and made without sufficient inquiry, misleading the High Court. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. A judgment based on an incorrect statement made on oath by the State Government must be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 7 )
5. Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and matter remanded for fresh hearing with costs awarded to the appellants. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. What is the effect of a court judgment based on an incorrect statement made on oath by a government representative?
If a judgment is based on a statement made on oath by the State Government that is later found to be incorrect, the judgment must be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision. (Para 7 )
7. Does a bona fide belief or lack of intent to mislead excuse an incorrect statement made on oath by a government officer?
No. The court held that making a categorical statement on oath without conducting a proper inquiry—such as checking relevant departmental files—constitutes a failure that justifies setting aside the resulting judgment, regardless of the officer's claimed bona fides. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
8. What level of vigilance should courts exercise regarding affidavits filed by the State Government?
Courts should be very vigilant in accepting as correct statements made on oath on behalf of the State Government, especially when such statements may be made without adequate inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 )
ORDER
The judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Karnataka in writ appeals is challenged, with special leave, by the assessee.
2. 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 27th September, 1990, had not been published in the State Government Gazette. The reason for doing so was the stand of the State Government. In a rejoinder filed on behalf of the State Government in the writ appeals, the following had been stated :-
"It is submitted that the Government Order dated 27.9.1990 (vide Annexure A) was not issued in exercise of its powers under Section 8A of the KST Act, 1957. It was neither published in the Official Gazette nor was laid before the Statement Legislature as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
The averments in the rejoinder were verified on affidavit, as true to his knowledge, by R. Krishna Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments VI). It was found during the course of the argument that the said Government Order had, in fact, been published in the State Government Gazette dated 7th March, 1991. We, therefore, passed the following order :-
"It, therefore, becomes clear that the statement made in the rejoinder verified on oath as aforementioned that the said Government Order was not published in the Official Gazette is false. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the other statement in the rejoinder, namely, that the Government Order was not laid before the Legislature as contemplated under Section 39 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, is also incorrect. An enquiry must be made and an affidavit setting out the true position must be filed.
It also becomes necessary to find out how a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could verify on oath as true to his own knowledge that 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 7.3.91 is marked as Exhibit A and shall be treated as a part of the record."
3. In response to that order, Cecil Noronha, Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka, has made an affidavit on 31st August, 1996. With respect to the stand taken in the rejoinder about the publication of the said Government Order in the State Government Gazette, the Chief Secretary states that he found "from the enquiries made that Shri R. Krishna Murthy had bona fide believed that no publication had been effected. The said Government Order was prepared and issued by the Commerce and Industries Department of the State Government. The Office and Department of Commercial Taxes to which Shri Krishna Murthy belongs had nothing to do with the preparation of the Government Order in question. Sri R. Krishna Murthy had himself personally looked through the back numbers of the Karnataka Gazette for a period of 3 months after 27.9.90 having regard to the normal practice of State Government s Notification under S.8A of the KST Act being generally published within a week or two of their date of issue. The statement made to the effect that there was no publication of the Government Order in question in Official Gazette could have been circumscribed in respect of the period for which he had made a thorough search, namely three months, instead of making it an absolute statement. However, in the circumstances of the case, what Sri
