The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can use its inherent powers under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure implementation of its orders, especially when the orders are not being followed by the concerned party.

R. Sudhakar, J.

1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed for a direction on the respondents/department to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/= (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) to the petitioner along with interest in consequence to the common order dated 21.3.2014 passed by this Court in T.C. (R) No.119/2009.

2. This Court, vide order dated 3.8.10 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/= (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) as condition precedent for grant of stay within a stipulated time frame, which order was complied with by the petitioner. The tax case revisions were, thereafter, directed to be posted for hearing on 6.12.2010. Subsequently, after hearing the respondents/Department, vide order dated 21.03.2014, the tax case revisions were allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was set aside, the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereinbelow for better clarity :-

"8. Considering the above said circumstances narrated by learned Senior Counsel, this Court thought fit to call for the records pertaining to the Criminal Court proceedings and the Enforcement Wing Officials records from the Government Pleader, so that the nature of transaction as contended by the assessee could be seen from verification of the same. Sufficient opportunity was given to the Revenue to find out whether in respect of the criminal proceedings any records were available with the Revenue and also to find out whether any statement at all were recorded from the assessee too at the time of inspection, since according to the assessee no statements were recorded and no documents pertaining to the alleged purchase of raw films were effected. However the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue expressed his inability to produce the same on the ground that none of the documents pertaining to inspection were available with the Revenue. However, considering the fact that criminal proceedings are already pending before the Criminal Court, this Court again asked the Additional Government Pleader to find out whether anything was available with the police official or in the learned Magistrate Court as regards the seizure of records during the inspection. Learned Government Pleader placed before this Court the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) T.Nagar (North) Assessment Circle to the Special Government Pleader dated 10.03.2014 enclosing the copy of the letter received from the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Wing dated 10.03.2014. The said letter reads as under:

"Kind attention is invited to the subject and reference cited above.

In this connection, it is intimated that the proceedings/statement given by the assessee before the Enforcement Officers of the Commercial Tax Officer is not cited as Exhibit in RC 2/E/98-CBI/BS & FC/BLR (CC 82/2001) pertaining to M/s.Prasad Properties and Investments (P) Ltd., Chennai."

Thus, we regretfully note that there is practically no assistance in this matter from the Revenue to place the inspection records or for that matter search records to find out the statement recorded from the assessee, the details of the records recovered and the findings thereon.

9. Thus with the available materials, when we looked at the facts of the case, it is evident, particularly from the confirmation letters of the Indian Bank, as regards the granting of credit in favour of the suppliers and the bills discounted for the purchase of raw films by the assessee. The assessee had noted this transaction as loan in the books of accounts. Read in the context of the factual absence of any block of raw films at the time of inspection and the affidavit filed from the various suppliers as well as the Indian Bank on the proceedings taken against Indian Bank on the bogus transactions, we can only draw an inference that the contentions of the assessee merited acceptance by this Court. We may point out that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribun