Practice and Procedure – Notice of SLP – Service of – Applicant-company sought to re-call Judgment passed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the applicant-company was not served with the notice of the SLP – Acknowledgment receipt in the record showed one ‘SN’, chartered accountant of the applicantcompany had received dasti notice on 13.12.2018 – ‘SN’ submitted that he bonafide believed that the documents were “some income tax return documents from the Income Tax Department” and further submitted that he was suffering from an advanced stage of cataract and had undergone a surgery in both eyes on 04.01.2019 and 23.01.2019 – Applicant-company contended that ‘SN’ was not the ‘principal officer’ of the applicant and hence service could not have been effected upon him – Held: ‘SN’ admittedly was the power of Attorney holder of the applicant for the A.Y. 2009-10 and was the agent of the assessee-company and hence notice could be served on him as the agent of the assessee-company in the present case – ‘SN’ did not disclose as to when the envelope containing dasti notice was opened – Further, submission of ‘SN’ that dasti notice from the Supreme Court was considered by him as to be ‘some income tax return documents’ lacked credibility – Dasti notice was served on him on 13.12.2018, which was much prior to his surgery – He had sufficient time to inform the applicant of the proceedings – Also, ‘SN’ had appeared before the Income Tax Authorities to represent the applicant on various dates prior to his surgery – Therefore, no credible or cogent grounds for re-call of judgment made out – Applicant was duly served through authorised representative. Dismissing the Miscellaneous application, the Court
HELD: 1. ‘SN’, a Chartered Accountant admittedly being the Power of Attorney holder of the Applicant for the A.Y. 2009 –
10 was the agent of the Assesse – Company, and hence Notice could be served on him as the agent of the Assessee – Company in this case. [Para 12][1111-F]
2. The ground taken by ‘SN’ that even though Notice was served on 13.12.2018, he assumed that they were “some Income Tax Return Documents” lacks credibility. It is difficult to accept that the envelope containing the dasti Notice from this Court was considered to be “some Income Tax Return documents”. The deponent does not at all disclose as to when the envelope containing the dasti Notice was ever opened. Furthermore, the ground urged that the Chartered Accountant was suffering from an advanced stage of cataract, and hence was constrained from informing his clients is again not worthy of credence. The dasti Notice was admittedly served on him on 13.12.2018 at his office, which was much prior to his surgery which he states took place on 04.01.2019. ‘SN’ had sufficient time to inform the Applicant – Company of the proceedings, prior to his surgery. Furthermore, ‘SN’ appeared before the Income Tax Authorities to represent the Applicant – Company and its sister concerns on various dates prior to his surgery i.e. on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018. [Para 13][1111-G; 1112-A-C]
3. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Applicant – Company was duly served through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The Applicant – Company chose to let the matter proceed ex-parte. The grounds for Re-call of the Judgment are devoid of any merit whatsoever. [Para 14][1112-D]
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata (2005) 12 SCC 77 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.