In a recent decision, the Madras High Court observed that the personal details of the concerned dealer cannot be compelled to be furnished to the assessee during the course of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Court in the instant case found that the documents required by the assessee for the purpose of cross-examination is not, are personal details which are not relevant to prove their version.
The factual settings of the case are that, in terms with the High Court order directing the authorities to grant the petitioners-assessee a fair opportunity of cross-examination, the assessee submitted a list of documents before the concerned authority seeking the copies of the same. The authorities refused to grant copies of some documents which are confidential in nature. Being dissatisfied with the action of the authorities, the assessee approached the High Court contending that no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to them.
The court noticed that the assessee has sought for the copies of some documents, such as xerox copy of the application and other details when they applied for registration certificate, the name of the Officer, who issued the certificate, the xerox copy of the ration card, the name of the Officer, who collected the renewal fee., etc. the Court found that these details are absolutely not germane to complete assessment. Further, it was emphasized that “That part, these are documents filed by other dealers and are kept on the file of the respondent, and he holds the same in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the details there under, which are personal to the concerned dealer, cannot be compelled to be furnished to the petitioner, even as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act.”
While concluding, the Court added that “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the direction issued by this Court, in W.P.No.38521 of 2004, dated 07.01.2005, insofar it relates to furnishing of documents is concerned, the same has been complied with by the respondent, and the petitioner is not entitled for any more documents. However, the other limb of the direction issued by this Court, is with regard to giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses who are examined by the respondents. This, of course, has not been complied with. Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief.”
Read the full text of the Judgment below.
