B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, being S.C.A. No. 2885 of 1986. The writ petition filed in the High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court do, in our opinion, amount to gross abuse of process of Court, a fact which would be evident from the facts stated hereinafter. We are taking the facts from the judgment of the High Court and we may mention that the correctness of none of those facts is disputed before us.
(3.) A notice dated December 28, 1983 was served upon the appellant by the Central Excise Authorities alleging that the appellant had clandestinely removed power loom cotton fabrics worth Rupees sixty two crores without payment of excise duty during the period November 24, 1979 to July 31, 1983. The allegation was that the appellant wrongfully availed of exemption notification and cleared the goods in an illicit manner. The appellant challenged the validity of the said show cause notice by filing a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court, being S.C.A. No. 4611 of 1984, which was disposed of on September 13, 1984 under the following order: "No final action pursuant to the show cause notice had been taken. It is for the petitioners to show cause. Their complaint before us is that certain documents on which they would like to rely, though the excise authorities have indicated that they do not propose to rely on them, are not made available to them despite their request and this may vitiate the proceedings now taken as it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though we have been addressed elaborately by the petitioners' counsel, we have not been persuaded to agree that interference at this stage is called for. It is open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions in answer to the show cause notice including their contention as to why the copies of the documents sought for by them are necessary for the proper conduct of their defence and as to how non supply of those copies would vitiate the proceedings. We expect the excise authorities to properly look into all the contentions taken by the petitioners including the contention of non-supply of copies. It is not necessary to consider in this petition whether those copies would be relevant and whether if not supplied now, the proceedings would have been held to be bad. We do not think, on the facts averred in the petition, any case has been made out for interference. Hence we are dismissing the petition as premature. Dismissed." (Emphasis added) ;