ROCK ENTERPRISES THR ITS PARTNERS vs. SAGAR MARUTI SURYAWANSHI AND ORS

WP/2047/2025HC BombayHCBM01008159202525 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to grant the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to obtain a copy of the order dated August 1, 2005, passed by the CIT (Appeals), if such an order indeed exists. The Court clarified that the Petitioner would not be permitted to lead any additional evidence with regard to the said order. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to obtain and produce a copy of the order within three weeks from the date of the judgment. The parties were also explicitly barred from leading evidence concerning this order. The core principle is that procedural fairness may necessitate allowing parties to obtain relevant documents, even if previously unavailable, provided it does not lead to undue delay or prejudice by way of additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Rock Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 4, 2025, passed by the Civil Judge, Pune. The Civil Judge had rejected the Defendants' application seeking production of a copy of an order dated August 1, 2005, passed by the CIT (Appeals). This order was related to an assessment under Section 158 BD read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act for the block period April 1, 1990, to November 9, 2000. The Defendants contended that the CIT (Appeals) order referenced an unsigned MOU, which was crucial to the suit. The trial court considered the order a public document and declined to direct its production. The Petitioner had not applied for a certified copy of the order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for production of the order dated August 1, 2005, passed by the CIT (Appeals), which is crucial for the determination of the suit, particularly concerning the unsigned MOU, and if so, what relief should be granted? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the order of the CIT (Appeals) was necessary as it referred to an unsigned MOU, which was the basis of the suit. They sought to produce this document before the trial court. Revenue's Contention: The Respondents resisted the Petitioner's submission and drew attention to previous High Court orders extending the time to dispose of the Special Summary Suit No. 49 of 2013 until February 2025.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158 BD,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

905 wp 2047 of 2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2047 OF 2025 Rock Enterprises ... Petitioner versus Sagar Maruti Suryavanshi and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil i/by Mr. Pratik Rahade, for Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Bhise with Ms. Deepali Kedar, for Respondent No.1. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2025 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 4 February 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune, whereby the application preferred by the Defendants seeking production of the copy of the order dated 1 August 2005 passed by the CIT (Appeals) in the matter of Assessment made under Section 158 BD read with Section 144 of Income Tax Act, for the Block period from 1 April 1990 to 9 November 2000, came to be rejected. 3. The said application was preferred on the premise that in the said order, there is a reference to the MOU, a copy of which has been produced before the trial Court, and it has been recorded therein that the said MOU was unsigned. The learned Judge was of the view that the said order was in the nature of a public document, and, therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be directed to produce the same. SSP 1/3 2025:BHC-AS:9363

905 wp 2047 of 2025.doc 4. Evidently, a copy of the said order was not annexed to the application. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not made an application before the concerned authority for furnishing a copy of the said order. 5. Having regard to the tenor of the application, it implies that the Petitioner had access to the said document. If the document in question is an order passed by the CIT(Appeals), the Petitioner ought to be in a position to get a certified copy of the said order. 6. After the Court expressed the aforesaid view, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks liberty to approach the concerned authorities under the Income Tax Act, to obtain a copy of the said order and place the same before the trial Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents resisted the aforesaid submission. Attention of the Court was invited to the orders passed by this Court on 19 December 2022 and 26 February 2022, whereby the time to dispose the Special Summary Suit No.49 of 2013 has been extended till February 2025. 8. The prayer of the Petitioner is for production of the copy of the order which, according to the Petitioner, bears upon the determination of the suit as it allegedly pertains to the MOU which is the basis of the suit. 9. In this view of the matter, it would be expedient in the interest of SSP 2/3

905 wp 2047 of 2025.doc justice to grant a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to obtain a coy of the said order passed by the CIT (Appeals), if such an order is indeed passed, and place the same before the trial Court. However, it is clarified that the Petitioner shall not be permitted to lead any additional evidence with regard to the said order. 10. The Petition, thus, stands disposed with liberty to the Petitioner to obtain and produce a copy of the order 1 August 2005 passed by the CIT (Appeals), if such an order indeed exists, referred to in the prayer clause of the application, on which the impugned order has been passed, within a period of three weeks from today. 11. It is, however, clarified that the parties shall not be permitted to lead evidence with regard to the said order. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/02/2025 18:49:16

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →