Natwar Textile Processors Private LTD. vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 22

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Natwar Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 185 of 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14696 of 1989)
Decided on 9-1-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Ashok H. Desai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. S. Ganesh and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advocates with him for Appellants; Mr. J. Vellapally, Sr. Advocate and Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocate with him for Respondents.

Advocates:
ASHOK DESAI, BINA GUPTA, HARISH N.SLAVE, J.VELLAPALLY, P.PARMESHVARAN, S.GANESH RAO

Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Collector of Customs - Central Excise Authorities - Appeal arises from judgment and order of Gujarat High Court dismissing writ petition filed by appellant writ petition filed in High Court and Special Leave Petition filed in this Court against judgment of High Court do in our opinion amount to gross abuse of process of Court a fact which would be evident from facts stated hereinafter- Court are taking facts from judgment High Court and court may mention that correctness of none of those facts is disputed before was served upon appellant by Central Excise Authorities alleging that appellant had clandestinely removed court loom cotton fabrics worth Rupees sixty without payment of excise duty during period allegation was that appellant wrongfully availed of exemption notification and cleared goods in an illicit manner- appellant challenged validity said show cause notice by filing–Held court and so is present Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal- It is necessary in interests of justice that such tactics should not be pass muster and should in no event be to benefit persons - Stringent terms have be imposed so that not only appellant but or minded like him should know that y should not play with courts and that if y do should not complain if y are mauled in process- This price of abusing process of court which is seized of matter has undoubted make such orders as it thinks just and necessary to meet ends of justice- It should be remembered that it is respondent who has invoked jurisdiction of High Court and this Court appellant submitted that his request for inspection of documents is a justified one and that all that appellant wanted to know was names officers who visited appellants factory dates and time enable it defend itself effectively- Court are not prepared to entertain said submission inasmuch as Gujarat High Court had rejected this very submission in earlier writ petition with observation that all se questions can be agitated by appellant as and when he files an appeal before Tribunal against orders of Collector case Collector decides against him- said order has become final and cannot be re-opened in a subsequent writ petition Appellant has filed written submission wherein it is stated that a similar request for inspection of documents is pending consideration in case of another Birla Jute Industries Union India appellant has also sought to make out a justification for his request for inspection reasons stated above said submission could not have been raised in writ petition from which this appeal arises for reasons stated in preceding appellant has also sought to blame Central Excise Authorities for not moving fast for vacating orders passed by court or for early disposal- Court are surprised at this logic- While court agree that revenue authorities have been lax not moving for early disposal of matter in this court at any rate that does not explain condone or justify conduct of appellant- So far plea of fairness in action is concerned it remember that fairness is not a one way street- authorities are undoubtedly bound to act fairly but so more particularly when he seeks invoke discretionary jurisdiction of High Court or of this court- No person has act unfairly and yet call upon ors to act fairly - Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, being S.C.A. No. 2885 of 1986. The writ petition filed in the High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court do, in our opinion, amount to gross abuse of process of Court, a fact which would be evident from the facts stated hereinafter. We are taking the facts from the judgment of the High Court and we may mention that the correctness of none of those facts is disputed before us.

3. A notice dated December 28, 1983 was served upon the appellant by the Central Excise Authorities alleging that the appellant had clandestinely removed power loom cotton fabrics worth Rupees sixty two crores without payment of excise duty during the period November 24, 1979 to July 31, 1983. The allegation was that the appellant wrongfully availed of exemption notification and cleared the goods in an illicit manner. The appellant challenged the validity of the said show cause notice by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court, being S.C.A. No. 4611 of 1984, which was disposed of on September 13, 1984 under the following order :

"No final action pursuant to the show cause notice had been taken. It is for the petitioners to show cause. Their complaint before us is that certain documents on which they would like to rely, though the excise authorities have indicated that they do not propose to rely on them, are not made available to them despite their request and this may vitiate the proceedings now taken as it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though we have been addressed elaborately by the petitioners counsel, we have not been persuaded to agree that interference at this stage is called for. It is open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions in answer to the show cause notice including their contention as to why the copies of the documents sought for by them are necessary for the proper conduct of their defence and as to how non supply of those copies would vitiate the proceedings. We expect the excise authorities to properly look into all the contentions taken by the petitioners including the contention of non-supply of copies. It is not necessary to consider in this petition whether those copies would be relevant and whether if not supplied now, the proceedings would have been held to be bad.

We do not think, on the facts averred in the petition, any case has been made out for interference. Hence we are dismissing the petition as premature. Dismissed."

(Emphasis added)

4. Against the said order of the High Court, the appellant approached this court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11569 of 1984, which was dismissed on May 6, 1985 under the following order :

"The point as to the limitation before us can be raised in reply to the show cause notice received by the petitioners. The request for inspection of documents can also be raised by the petitioners, before the Collector of Customs. Central Excise. We trust that the request will be duly considered. The Special leave petition is dismissed accordingly".

(Emphasis added)

5. Meanwhile, the appellant had applied to the Central Excise Authorities for inspection of certain documents on July 16, 1984. It is evidently this request which finds a mention in the order of this court aforesaid. This request was rejected by the authorities on December 16, 1985. The appellant then approached the Gujrat High Court by way of S.C.A. No. 317 of 1986 questioning the refusal of inspection of documents asked for by him. When the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench on March 18, 1986, the appellant sought to withdraw the writ petition. It was dismissed as withdrawn under the following order :

"Mr. V.N. Nair on behalf of Mr. S.I. Nanavati wants permission of the court to withdraw this petition as not pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document