- (1.) We do not advert to the facts in any detail because the position that we now set out is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents. He does not now dispute that no show cause notices were issued to the petitioners before the alleged deferment orders were passed. Assuming that the deferment orders were passed, therefore, this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in FAG Precision Bearings v. Sales Tax Officer (I) (1997) 104 STC 142, and the writ petition must be made absolute in terms of prayer (b) and (c).
(2.) We now come to a serious concern. On 13th January, 1998, we had passed the following order: "The statement of objections on behalf of the first respondent refers, in para 5, to orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes deferring the assessments of the petitioners for the years mentioned therein. The rejoinder of the petitioners denies this and avers that no such order, much less any show cause notice for the proposed deferment. was ever served on the petitioner. On the application of learned counsel for the first respondent, the writ petition is adjourned for six weeks to produce copies of the deferment orders aforementioned as also show cause notices, if any that preceded the same as also proof of service of the deferment orders upon the petitioners. The first respondent shall furnish the petitioners with copies of the aforesaid documents with five weeks." Pursuant thereto a copy of the deferment orders has been disclosed, verified by the affidavit of Shiva Prasad S/o Shri M. Siddalingappa, Additional DCCT. Assessment vi, Bangalore.
(3.) The orders are contained on a sheet which contains seven columns; the 7th column is for the "Remarks of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Admn." There is no entry in the 7th column in relation to the item relative to the alleged deferment orders as shown on the copy now disclosed. There is also no entry in the 7th column in relation to the only other item, pertaining to a third party, on the same sheet.;