Rajasthan High Court
Natwar Lal Sharda S/O Late Sh. Tansukh ... vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2023
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.113/2019
In
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2031/2018
Natwar Lal Sharda S/o Late Sh. Tansukh Rai Sharda, Aged About
55 Years, Resident Of M-38-39, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak,
Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block New Delhi
2. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax
Intelligence (DGGSTI), Through Its Director General,
West Block-VIII Wing- VI, 1st Floor, Sector - 1 R.K. Puram,
New Delhi- 110066
3. Sh. Rajesh Verma, Senior Intelligence Officer, Director
General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence
(DGGSTI), West Block-VIII, Wing- VI, 1 Floor, Sector - 1 st
R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066
4. M/s Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited, Through Its
Director-Mr. Ajay Sharda Registered Office At J-6, Himmat
Nagar, Tonk Phthak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.89/2019 In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2031/2018 M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited, Through Its Director- Mr. Ajay Sharda, Registered Officer At J-6, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block New Delhi.
2. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Through Its Director General West (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (2 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] Block-VIII, Wing-VI, 1St Floor, Sector- 1 R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066.
3. Sh. Rajesh Verma, Senior Intelligence Officer Director General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), West Block-VIII, Wing-VI, 1St Floor, Sector-1 R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Anupam Bhargava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Advocate with Mr. Jay Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate Mr. Daksh Pareek, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 20/12/2023
1. By these review petitions, the petitioners have prayed for review of order dated 12.02.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2031/2018 (M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others) and prayed for recalling/modifying of the aforesaid order.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to these review petitions are that M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. filed writ petition (No.2031/2018) challenging action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 against the petitioner-company. The petitioner therein challenged the search conducted on 27.08.2017 in the premises of the petitioner-company and also prayed for return of all the documents including original sale-deed of various immovable properties taken away during search. A prayer was made for (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (3 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to take action against the officer of respondent No.2 and also against respondent No.3 in terms of Service Rules, for indulging in vexatious search in the premises of the petitioner-company. Prayer was also made to restrain the respondents from disposing of or tinkering with the documents taken away from the petitioner-company during search conducted on 27.08.2017. That writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 12.02.2019 and it was dismissed. While dismissing the said petition, the Division Bench of this Court considered the submissions and examined the material on record and came to the conclusion that the material collected by the respondents suggested that the officials of the respondents in conducing search acted bona fide.
3. The review petition (No.113/2019) came to be filed by the petitioner Mr. Natwar Lal Sharda ventilating grievance that various remarks, observations, conclusions, findings have been recorded regarding nexus of the petitioner in the alleged evasion of tax though on the date when the search was conducted, the petitioner was no longer Director in the company namely M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited (petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2031/2018). According to the review petitioner, he has no connection whatsoever with the affairs of the M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited and he had no role to play nor in any manner involved in any tax evasion allegedly committed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. According to the review petitioner, though on such allegations of he being involved in evasion of tax, he was arrested but later on, granted bail. An application for (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (4 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] cancellation of bail was also rejected. He had filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court; Writ Petition (C) No.9956/2017 was filed seeking declaration that the action of the officers of respondents therein against the review petitioner was arbitrary, malicious and motivated and search conducted in his residential premises were illegal and against the provisions of law along with the prayer seeking declaration that detention was illegal. Prayer was also made for direction to conduct inquiry against the officers of the respondents therein.
In another case i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No.3532/2017, validity of provisions of Sections 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been questioned on the ground that the same is ultra-vires various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Constitution of India. Prayer has also been made for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the review petitioner.
4. When the petitioner came to know that in the petition filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited (Writ Petition No.2031/2018 and connected review petitions), order has been passed by Division Bench of this Court on 12.02.2019 wherein various findings have been recorded against the present review petitioner in D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.113/2019 regarding his involvement in the alleged evasion of tax whereas he was not one of the Director on the date of search, the Writ Petition (C) No.9956/2017 filed before the Delhi High Court has been withdrawn and present review petition has been filed. (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (5 of 10) [WRW-113/2019]
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Natwar Lal Sharda argued in extenso and submitted that though various findings have been recorded against the review petitioner, the review petitioner was not party in the said petition because he was no longer Director of the company, therefore without hearing him, no observation or remark could be made against him. According to him, the review petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company and filed application on 11.09.2017 in Form 32/DIR- 12 with the Registrar of Companies. Further submission is that the observation made in the order that review petitioner was the Managing Director of the company is not correct. On the date when the search was carried out on 27.08.2017, he was not present because he was taken away by the officers of the respondents and no inquiry has been made from the review petitioner with regard to the search carried out on 27.08.2017. His residential premises were searched on 26.08.2017 at Jaipur and he was taken away to Delhi. He was later on arrested on 27.08.2017 on the allegation of evasion of excise duty of Rs.63 crores by unregistered factory at Bastar with which the review petitioner is not at all connected. His bail application was allowed on 27.09.2017 by the Ld. CMM Patiala House Court, Delhi as prima facie he was not found involved. Therefore, in the present case, the observations which have been made against the review petitioner are liable to be expunged as those observations would otherwise harm the review petitioner in other proceedings including criminal proceedings against him. (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (6 of 10) [WRW-113/2019]
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that no case for review is made out. He would submit that the writ petition filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited sought various directions for taking action against the officers of the respondents on the allegation that the search and further proceedings were vexatious and an act of harassment. The material placed before the writ court by the respondents was thoroughly and meticulously examined and on the basis of the material before the Court, observations were made regarding review petitioner's role also. He would further submit that the issue with regard to review petitioner continuing as Director of the company on the date the search was carried out itself is a serious issue. The order passed in the Writ Petition No.2031/2018 does not conclude all the proceedings pending in various fora but only answers issues arising in the case that without any basis search was conducted and the Director of the petitioner-company and their family members were harassed. He would further submit that Division Bench has passed a detailed order and with reference to the specific material on record, it has been stated that some incriminating material has emerged from the record indicating involvement of the present petitioner. Therefore, the review petition is without any basis and deserves to be dismissed.
7. A perusal of the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2031/2018 and connected review petitions reveals that petition was filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited through its Director Mr. Ajay Sharda inter alia with the prayer that action of the respondents therein namely (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (7 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence in conducting search in the premises of the petitioner at Jaipur on 27.08.2017 be declared arbitrary, malicious, motivated, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also without jurisdiction. Prayer was also made for return of all the documents including original sale-deed/title deed of various immovable properties allegedly taken away on 27.08.2017 during the search proceedings. Prayer was also made for taking action against the officers of the respondents therein on the allegation that search was vexatious. There were two review petitions also filed by the Department seeking review of an order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench wherein direction was issued to take appropriate action in view of prayer alleging vexatious search.
8. The Court took into consideration various submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, material on record including certain incriminating material which were collected by the officers of the Department and noticed. At the first place, it needs to be noticed that material placed on record were examined for the limited purposes whether the search conducted was vexatious. The material on record shows that number of proceedings are pending at various fora and subsequently show cause notice has also been issued to the review petitioner--Natwar Lal Sharda. There are allegations of his involvement in evasion of tax. Prima facie consideration of material on record was undertaken only to find out whether it is a case where search carried out and other proceedings could be said to be completely malicious, vexatious (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (8 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] and without any material. It was observed that the Director of M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited Mr. Ajay Sharda is none other than the son of the present review petitioner. The assertion of the respondents that the review petitioner also happens to be the Director of the petitioner-company was taken into consideration. It was also taken into consideration that two writ petitions have already been filed and that search was conducted in the premises of the review petitioner. The fact that the review petitioner was arrested and then granted bail has also been taken into consideration. It has also been taken into consideration that vide order dated 18.12.2017, the Delhi High Court has declined to grant any interim relief observing that review petitioner is accused of a serious offence of evading excise duty of more than Rs.63 crores and the matter is at the stage of investigation. The order under review and the statements made in the counter affidavit regarding involvement of the present review petitioner were also taken into consideration. It has also been taken into consideration that on the basis of intelligence inputs, search was carried out at various premises at Bastar, Indore and Jaipur including residential premises of the review petitioner. Recovery of certain materials during the course of search carried out in different premises, have also been taken into consideration. The material, prima facie, disclosing involvement of the present review petitioner has also been taken note of. All the materials which have been collected by the respondents during the course of search and other proceedings were noticed by the Court and only thereafter certain observations have been made. It is not a case where this Court (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (9 of 10) [WRW-113/2019] has written any finding of guilt against the present review petitioner--Natwar Lal Sharda. However, existence of material on record prima facie indicating involvement of the present review petitioner along with other Directors of the company and other persons have been considered while examining the allegations that the search carried out in the business premises of the company and its Director and family members was vexatious, malicious and without any material whatsoever. What weight is required to be given to those materials would be a matter to be considered in various proceedings drawn by the Department and in other criminal proceedings. This Court only examined the material on record to find out whether the search carried out in the premises of the company could be said to be vexatious. On consideration of various material placed before the Court, the writ petition has been dismissed.
9. Therefore, no case for review is made out in D.B. Civil Review Petition No.113/2019.
10. In the other review petition filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited namely D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.89/2019, the review petitioner only seeks to re-iterate all those submissions which were made before this Court and were examined in detail. The material on record was meticulously examined and on the basis of material on record, the order has been passed. The review petition filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited fails to satisfy that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. If we may say so, the review petition filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited is an appeal in disguise. (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:38696-DB] (10 of 10) [WRW-113/2019]
11. In the result, both the review petitions are sans substratum and, therefore, dismissed.
12. A copy of this order be placed in each of the connected petition.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/ (Downloaded on 21/12/2023 at 10:12:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)