Delhi High Court
Aar Kay Industries vs State Govt. Of Delhi on 16 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005 142 TAXMAN 73 Delhi
ORDER
1. These writ petitions were disposed of on 8-10-1999. The different writ petitions were filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders of assessment for different years under the Sales-tax Act, 1975. The grievance of the petitioners was that there were certain records lying with the Income Tax Department, which could not be produced before the sales-tax authorities. These documents were stated to have been seized during the conduct of raids on the premises of petitioners by the income-tax authorities.
1. These writ petitions were disposed of on 8-10-1999. The different writ petitions were filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders of assessment for different years under the Sales-tax Act, 1975. The grievance of the petitioners was that there were certain records lying with the Income Tax Department, which could not be produced before the sales-tax authorities. These documents were stated to have been seized during the conduct of raids on the premises of petitioners by the income-tax authorities.
2. In terms of the directions passed on 8-10-1999, the remaining books lying with the income-tax authorities were directed to be returned to the petitioners and the assessing authority under the Sales-tax Act, 1975 was directed to pass fresh orders. The petitioners, however, did not appear on the date fixed before the authorities and subsequently filed the present applications seeking extension of time for the said purpose on the ground that all the documents by the income-tax authorities had not been released and, thus, the grievance of the petitioners remains. It was during the pendency of these applications that the income-tax authorities were also imp leaded as respondents.
2. In terms of the directions passed on 8-10-1999, the remaining books lying with the income-tax authorities were directed to be returned to the petitioners and the assessing authority under the Sales-tax Act, 1975 was directed to pass fresh orders. The petitioners, however, did not appear on the date fixed before the authorities and subsequently filed the present applications seeking extension of time for the said purpose on the ground that all the documents by the income-tax authorities had not been released and, thus, the grievance of the petitioners remains. It was during the pendency of these applications that the income-tax authorities were also imp leaded as respondents.
3. The petitioners on the one hand contend that all the documents had not been released, while the income-tax authorities state that whatever documents were available with them have been released and some documents have been misplaced. In fact, on 24-9-2003, learned counsel appearing for income-tax authorities had made a statement before this court that some of the records seized in 1989 are untraceable in the department. It was, however, deemed expedient that the Income Tax Department should file an affidavit in this behalf. The affidavit has been filed and a reply to that has also been filed by the petitioners.
3. The petitioners on the one hand contend that all the documents had not been released, while the income-tax authorities state that whatever documents were available with them have been released and some documents have been misplaced. In fact, on 24-9-2003, learned counsel appearing for income-tax authorities had made a statement before this court that some of the records seized in 1989 are untraceable in the department. It was, however, deemed expedient that the Income Tax Department should file an affidavit in this behalf. The affidavit has been filed and a reply to that has also been filed by the petitioners.
4. A reading of these pleadings show that the list of documents returned to the petitioners are available. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the seizure memo has not been produced which would show that the documents returned do not fully tally with the list of documents returned. Be that as it may, the position remains that even according to the respondents, some documents of the petitioners are not traceable.
4. A reading of these pleadings show that the list of documents returned to the petitioners are available. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the seizure memo has not been produced which would show that the documents returned do not fully tally with the list of documents returned. Be that as it may, the position remains that even according to the respondents, some documents of the petitioners are not traceable.
5. In view of the affidavit of the income-tax authorities that whatever documents are in their possession have been returned to the petitioners and the remaining documents are not traceable, no further directions for return of any documents can be made in this behalf. It is for the sales-tax authorities to consider the effect of certain documents of the petitioners not being traceable with the income-tax authorities.
5. In view of the affidavit of the income-tax authorities that whatever documents are in their possession have been returned to the petitioners and the remaining documents are not traceable, no further directions for return of any documents can be made in this behalf. It is for the sales-tax authorities to consider the effect of certain documents of the petitioners not being traceable with the income-tax authorities.
6. Applications stands disposed of.
6. Applications stands disposed of.
CM 10094/2001 in WP (C) 1955/1995
7. No further directions on this application filed by the Local Commissioner are required to be passed and the application accordingly stands disposed of.
7. No further directions on this application filed by the Local Commissioner are required to be passed and the application accordingly stands disposed of.
