M/S. LIPTON INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 08-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. LIPTON INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Affidavit: 
Affidavit filed on behalf of State Government in a case pending before 
High Court-High Court acted upon the said affidavit and decided the case C 
accordingly-Statement made in the affidavit subsequently found to be incor-
rect-Another affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary of the State,· in response 
to this Court's directions indicated that the authority concerned did not realise 
the seriousness of swearing a false statement on oath and filing the said 
affidavit before the High Court-Held, the High Court should be very vigilant 
in accepting as correct a statement, even though it be made on oath, on behalf D 
of the State Government-High Court's judgment set aside and the matter 
remanded to High Court to be heard and decided afresh. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5425-29 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.94 of the Karnataka High 
Court W.P. Nos. 274-78 of 1994. 
H.N. Salve, S. Ganesh, Ravinder Narain, Rajan Narain, Ms. Sonu 
E 
Bhatnagar and Sajan Narain for the J.B.D. & Co. for the Appellants. 
p 
T.L. Vishwantha Iyer, K.H. Nobin Singh and M. Veerappa for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at 
Karnataka in writ appeals is challenged, with special leave, by the assessee. 
During the course of the argument on 13th August, .1996, we found 
G 
that the Division Bench had proceeded upon the basis that Government 
Order No. CI 138 SPC 90 (P) dated 27th September, 1990, had not been H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A published in the State Government Gazette. The reason for doing so was 
B 
· the stand of the State Government. In a rejoinder filed on behalf of the 
State Government.in the writ appeals, the following had been stated : 
"It is submitted that the Government Order dated 27.9.1990 (vide 
Annexure A) was not issued in exercise of its powers under Section 
SA of the KST Act, 1957. It was neither published in the Official 
Gazette nor was laid before the Statement Legislature as con-
templated under Sec~ion 89 of the Act." 
(Emphasis supplied.) 
C The averments in the rejoinder were verified on affidavit, as true to his 
knowledge, by R. Krishna Murthy, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial 
Taxes (Assessments VI). It was found during the course of the argument 
that the said Government Order had, in fact, been published in the State 
Government Gazette dated 7th March, 1991. We, therefore, passed the 
D following order : 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"It, therefore, becomes clear that the statement made in the_ 
rejoinder verified on oath as aforementioned that the said Govern-
ment Order was not published in the Official Gazette is false. It 
is, therefore, necessary to ascertain whether the other statement 
in the rejoinder, namely, that the Government Order was not 
before the Legislature as contemplated under Section 39 of the 
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, is also incorrect. An enquiry must be 
made and an affidavit setting out the true position must be filed. 
It also becomes necessary to find out how a Deputy Commis-
sioner of Commercial Taxes could verify on oath as true to his own 
knowledge that a Government Order relating to his own depart-
ment was not gazetted, when it was. It was either done out of gross 
negligence or deliberately to mislead the Court. 
Having regard to the seriousness of what is involved, we direct 
that an affidavit in regard both to the compliance with Section 39 
and in regard to the Deputy Commissioner's affidavit be put on 
affidavit to be made by the Chief Secretary of the State of Kar-
nataka. This shall be done within 3 weeks from today. 
One week, thereafter, is given to the appellants to file an 
LIPTON INDIA LTD. v. STAIB 
301 
affidavit in reply thereto. The matter is adjourned for 4 weeks. This A 
shall be treated as part-heard. 
The State Government Gazette dated 7.3.91 is marked as 
Exhibit 'A' and shall be treated as a part of the record." 
In response to that order, Cecil Noronha, Chief Secretary of the State 
of Karnataka, has made an affidavit on 31st August, 1996. With respect to 
the stand taken in the rejoinder about the publication of the said Govern-
ment Order in the State Government Gazette, the Chief Secretary states 
that he found "from the enquiries made that Shri R. Krishna Murthy had 
b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.