N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is nothing but an attempt to harass the private respondents by dragging them in a meaningless controversy long settled even as per taxing authority under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act.
(2.) THIS is petitioners' second attempt before this Court seeking a direction that the assessments made by the sales tax authorities over the years under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act in case of M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath be opened since they are guilty of suppressing true facts and thus evaded their sales tax liabilities. It was on October 5, 1976 that the petitioner lodged a complaint against M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath regarding evasion of sales tax to the District Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad, wherein he annexed 88 copies (photo copies) of the "uchanti Khata" (suspense account ). The matter was examined by the Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer and on the basis of the same, some proceedings were initiated against private respondents and finally the Assessing Authority issued notices to erstwhile partners of the firm, namely, Bharat Singh, Munshi Lal and Mahinder Kumar as to why the best judgment assessment be not passed for the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 and finally the Assessing Authority passed order on February 15, 1978 - annexure P7. Petitioner in fact had no locus standi being a mere complainant, yet he chose to file an appeal against the order of the Assessing Authority dated February 15, 1978 before the Appellate Authority-cum-Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Firm and its partners too filed appeals against the orders of the Assessing Authority. The Appellate Authority decided the appeal filed by the firm and its partners on merits. On further appeal before the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, entire assessment proceedings for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 were quashed and it was held that there was no liability to pay tax with a further direction that the amount of tax paid by the assessee be refunded. This order is annexure P9, dated January 22, 1982. Petitioner assailed this order of the Tribunal by filing writ petition bearing 1673 of 1982 which came up for hearing before the honourable Judges K. S. Tiwana and B. S. Yadav who found no merit in any of the submissions, made by the petitioner and consequently dismissed the same vide order dated April 14, 1982. However, in view of the enquiry report notices were issued to the firm as well as its partners who put in appearance before the concerned authority and filed written reply to the notices issued. Since the matter was sought to be reopened on the complaint filed by Mahinder Kumar, it was urged that he be directed to substantiate his allegations. Relying upon decision of this Court reported as Baldev Raj Kabaria v. State of Punjab [1982] 50 STC 337 and two decisions of the apex Court reported as Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 STC 770 and State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 17 STC 465 the proposed notices were filed vide order dated April 16, 1986 of the Revisional Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer (I), Faridabad. On appeal the matter was examined by member, Sales Tax Tribunal vide order dated August 17, 1989. Vide composite order, eight appeals filed by two separate appellants were disposed of. The appeals filed by Mahinder Kumar were dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to file such an appeal as he is not a party to those proceedings. The review petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution and once again an application was filed for restoration of the review petitions before Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, which were hard and decided holding that no case is made for reviewing the order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions is two-fold, firstly, that the petitioner has been unheard by the authorities on the ground that he being a complainant had no locus standi to assail the correctness of the assessments made by the Assessing Authorities under the Sales Tax Act and secondly, that despite material evidence placed on record which if examined would have proved beyond any element of doubt that respondent No. 2 had been maintaining double set of books and that too with a view to evade their tax liability was brushed aside for no legitimate reason. Elaborating, the counsel urged that even if it be taken that petitioner being a complainant did not have locus standi to assail the orders made by the Assessing Authority under the Sales Tax Act yet in view of the fact that his father Munshi Lal having died and so he could legitimately assail various orders passed by the Assessing Authority as his legal representative was purposely not adverted to; else appeals and the review petitions could not be dismissed by the authorities. Respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 have filed separate written submissions controverting various material submissions made in the petition. By way of preliminary objection it has been urged that the present petition is nothing but amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Making mention of the orders passed by the authorities under the Sales Tax Act, it was urged that the petitioner was afforded hearing in the appeals filed by Munshi Lal (then alive) and it is thereafter that those appeals filed by the respondents were allowed and this being the position the present petition is nothing but a crude attempt to harass respondents time and again. Not only this, the matter came up for hearing before this Court in C. W. P. No. 1673 of 1982, where in the Court found no illegality in the order impugned and so dismissed the petition.
(3.) THE State of Haryana in its reply relying upon Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315; AIR 1983 SC 603 has taken an objection that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy as provided under section 42 of the Act and on this account the petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondent-State contested the stand of petitioner that his father Munshi Lal was ever a partner or had any other status in the firm. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and perused the relevant documents referred to by him during his submissions. Taxing authority under Sales Tax Act have no grievance against respondent No. 2 - M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath whose sales tax assessments for the disputed years had long been finalised. As per record, i. e. , the registration certificate of the firm, Munshi Lal was never a partner of the firm - M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath. That was why petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the assessments made by the Assessing Authority of M/s. Bharat Singh Ram Nath either as a complainant or as a legal representative of this father yet the authorities chose to hear the petitioner and decided the matter in controversy by passing speaking orders. The petitioner earlier too assailed the correctness of the order passed by the Assessing Authority/sales Tax Tribunal. Haryana, by filing C. W. P. No. 1673 of 1982 which was decided on April 14, 1982. The order reads as : " The petitioner's appeal was accepted by the Tribunal-respondent No. 1. The appeal of respondent No. 2 was also accepted. The petitioner's grievance is that he had made a complaint against respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the assessment had come to be made by the Assessing Authority. He further states that the appeal of respondent No. 2 was accepted by respondent No. 1, without giving him a hearing and on that ground the impugned order is illegal. The order of respondent No. 1 can be split into two parts-one is acceptance of the appeals of the petitioner himself which resulted in quashing of the assessment order. In that case the order has gone in his favour and cannot be questioned by him. The second part concerns the acceptance of appeal of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had no right to be heard, being a complainant. On the ground of not affording/hearing to the complainant in taxation matters we do not think if any illegality has been committed by respondent No. 1 in a matter of which he had no interest but only was a complainant. Dismissed. " ;