Harassment of assessee by tax department even before the Supreme Court – an unfortunate happening and an eye opener

[CA DEV KUMAR KOTHARI]

CIT, Ujjain Versus Dawoodi Bohara Jamat  Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9004/2010 2013 (3) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT

Copies of petitions to respondents:

Any petitioner is required to provide copy of  his petition/ corrected or amended petition to all of respondents individually. This is to ensure that the respondent is aware of what is prayed or claimed in petition. It is also desirable that along with the copy of petition all documents attached to it or relied on must be provided to the respondent so that the respondent can know about them and make out his case. However, unfortunately many documents are not even filed before Court and petitioner craves leave to produce the same later on. All such procedural aspects slow the process of rendering the justice.

If copy of petition with all documents relied on are provided to  the respondents, lot of time of petitioners, respondents and courts can be saved and justice can be rendered quickly. 

An eye opener case before the Supreme Court:

We find that in case of   CIT, Ujjain Versus Dawoodi Bohara Jamat and connected cases, the petitioner CIT  and his counsels  did not provide copy of petitions to respondents and the honorable Supreme Court had to consider the matter again and again and order for providing copy of petition to respondents. It appears that the simple procedural and preliminary step was being avoided by tax department or their counsels by not providing copy of petitions to respondents. The Supreme Court had to order a cost on such issue. Even there was delay in deposit of such costs, and the Court had to consider condonation of delay.

Operative part of some of orders which are found on the website of the Supreme court are reproduced below to show that how time of honorable judges was wasted because the CIT failed to provide copy of petitions to respondents inspite of not only specific requests of respondents but also inspite of specific directions of the honorable Supreme Court. At time every fixed date counsels of government as well as tax payers had to present.

It may be the case the tax department was deliberately adopting delaying tactics because it has lost its case before High Courts and was apprehensive of no chance to win before the Supreme Court also.

Orders of the Supreme Court:  

Date: 17/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

(IN CHAMBERS)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Umesh Babu Chaurasia, Adv.

Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaswat Patnaik, Adv.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Delay in depositing cost is condoned.

Four weeks' time is granted to comply with the office report.

Date: 13/03/2013  

These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

(IN CHAMBERS)

For Petitioner(s)    Ms. Kiran Kapoor,Adv.

Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)    Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

Mr. Shaswat Patnaik,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Despite several opportunities, fresh correct  copies  of  the special leave petitions have not been supplied  to  the  counsel for the respondent. By way of  one  last  opportunity  of  four weeks' is granted to the petitioner subject to  the  deposit  of cost  of  Rs.1000/-  with  the  Supreme  Court  Legal   Services Committee.  Cost be deposited within two weeks.

After  supply  of  correct  copies  of  the  petitions,   the respondent may file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Date: 01/02/2012   

This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr Kailash Pandey, Adv.

Mr K.K.Misra, ADv.

Mr Pabitra Kr Biswal, ADv.

Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Earlier order is to be complied with before 20.3.2012.

Petitioner has to comply with the order dated 7.12.2011 before 8.2.2012.

If it is not complied with, list the concerned SLP only for non-prosecution before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers.

Served respondents may file counter affidavit before 20.3.2012.

Date: 09/05/2012  

This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

 Mr Anil Gaur, Adv.

 Mr M.P.S.Tomar, Adv.

 Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Service is complete in all the petitions.

As    per   the   record,   it   is    posted   for   filing   of counter affidavit. It be filed by 18.7.2012.

Date: 18/07/2012 

This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr Ameet Singh, Adv.

Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr Shaswat Patnaik, Adv.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

In view of copies  of  letters  filed  on  8.6.2012  it  seems  that petitioner has failed to provide additional copies to the  other  side  even after specific demand on different dates  i.e.,29.7.2011,12.12.2011,6.2.2012,8.6.2012 etc. as well as even  after  specific order to that effect on 7.12.2011 etc.. Let the matter be listed before  the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution.

Date: 07/12/2011  

This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)     Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.

 Mr. Aldanish Rein, Adv.

 Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

 Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Learned counsel Mr. Shiv K. Suri, appearing for respondent in all the connected SLPs accepts notice for unserved respondent in SLP (C) NO. 27678 of 2011.

Petitioner   to    provide   additional   copies   of the pleadings.

Respondents may file counter affidavit before 17.01.2012.

Authors views:

It can be said that procedures must be simplified and each litigant must be responsible to comply with his procedural aspect sincerely and diligently. If that be done there will be no shortage of  Courts and Judges and long pending list of cases will  be cleared. The above case itself is an eye opener about delay in justice due to simple reason of not supplying copy of petitions to respondents.

Author had experience in many cases in which the dispute can be adjudicated within a period of 6-9 months if simple procedure are followed by petitioners and respondents for expeditious justice. However, it appears that due to possibility and effectiveness of delaying tactics, dishonest people are gaining lot of advantage (at least time is gained and then delayed execution also may be useful) and in a way it can be said that COURTS ARE PROVIDING SHELTER TO DISHONEST PEOPLE AT COST OF HONEST PEOPLE – A VERY UNFORTUANTE REALITY OF OUR SLOW AND LENGTHY JUSTICE SYSTEM.