SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.P. Bharucha and K. Venkataswami, JJ.

Writ Petn. (C) No. 237 of 1993. D/d. 19.3.1998.

M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and others - Appellant

Versus

The Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others - Respondent

Constitution of India, Article 129 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2 - Contempt Of Court - Direction to produce copies of order requires production of true and correct copies - Production of incorrect copies of deferment orders is disobedience of the Order - Suo motu notice for contempt issued.

[Paras 5 and 6]

Cases Referred :-

FAG Precision Bearings v. Sales Tax Officer, (I) (1997) 104 STC 142.

ORDER

We do not advert to the facts in any detail because the position that we now set out is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. He does not now dispute that no show cause notices were issued to the petitioners before the alleged deferment orders were passed. Assuming that the deferment orders were passed, therefore, this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in FAG Precision Bearings v. Sales Tax Officer (I) (1997) 104 STC 142, and the writ petition must be made absolute in terms of prayer (b) and (c).

2. We now come to a serious concern. On 13th January, 1998, we had passed the following order :

"The statement of objections on behalf of the first respondent refers, in para 5, to orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes deferring the assessments of the petitioners for the years mentioned therein. The rejoinder of the petitioners denies this and avers that no such order, much less any show cause notice for the proposed deferment. was ever served on the petitioner.

On the application of learned counsel for the first respondent, the writ petition is adjourned for six weeks to produce copies of the deferment orders aforementioned as also show cause notices, if any that preceded the same as also proof of service of the deferment orders upon the petitioners. The first respondent shall furnish the petitioners with copies of the aforesaid documents with five weeks."

Pursuant thereto a copy of the deferment orders has been disclosed, verified by the affidavit of Shiva Prasad S/o Shri M. Siddalingappa, Additional DCCT. Assessment vi, Bangalore.

3. The orders are contained on a sheet which contains seven columns; the 7th column is for the "Remarks of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Admn." There is no entry in the 7th column in relation to the item relative to the alleged deferment orders as shown on the copy now disclosed. There is also no entry in the 7th column in relation to the only other item, pertaining to a third party, on the same sheet.

4. Mr. V. R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that it had been stated by the petitioners on affidavit that a photocopy of the sheet aforementioned had been given by the respondents to the petitioners in the course of the proceedings in the High Court. That photocopy showed that the 7th Column in relation to the item relating to the petitioners had been filled in, handwriting thus. "Proceedings stayed by Court deferment does not arise". Mr. Reddy produced a copy of that photocopy before us. That photocopy shows that the 7th column was filled in even in relation to the third party aforementioned. It also shows the signature and designation of an officer thereunder. It was submitted by Mr. Reddy that the 7th column of the sheet aforementioned, both in respect of the item relating to the petitioner and the subsequent item relating to the third party, had been deliberately obscured in the sheet now disclosed because the entry in the 7th column in the item pertaining to the petitioner belied the respondents's contention that deferment orders had been passed, for it stated that the question of deferment did not arise.

5. It does appear prima facie, that the copy of the deferment orders that has been now disclosed by respondents 1 to 5 is not a correct copy and that, therefore, there is disobedience of this Court's order dated 13th January, 1998, which required, by necessary implication, production of true and correct copies of the deferment orders. Such production of an incorrect copy appears, prima facie, to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and to pervert the course of justice.

6. We therefore, deem it proper to direct the issuance to respondents 1 to 5 and to the aforementioned Shiva Prasad of a suo motu notice to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court. The notice shall be made returnable within 6 weeks.

7. On the returnable date we expect the petitioners to appear and produce the photocopies of the sheet aforementioned and of the sheet which was handed over to them during the course of the proceedings before the High Court.

8. The writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) and (c) with no order as to costs.

9. Notices to issue to respondents 1 to 5 and the aforementioned Shiva Prasad as aforestated.

Order accordingly.