CI 138 SPC 90 P dated 27th September, 1990, had number been published in the State Government Gazette.
The statement was made by the said officer as true to his knowledge.
It was either done out of gross negligence or deliberately to mislead the Court.
The Chief Secretary goes on to state, The companyduct of Sri R. Krishna Murthy in making the statement which he did number know to be false at the time of its being made, leads me to companyclude that there had been numberwilful intention to mislead the Honble High Court of Karnataka.
The rejoinder filed by the said officer in the High Court categorically stated that the said Government Order was number published in the State Government Gazette.
During the companyrse of the argument on 13th August, 1996 we found that the Division Bench had proceeded upon the basis that Government Order No.
The administration of the State of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary, does number find the said officer guilty of gross negligence.
The statement was made on oath on behalf of the State Government.
With respect to the stand taken in the rejoinder about the publication of the said Government Order in the State Government Gazette, the Chief Secretary states that he found from the enquiries made that Shri R. Krishna Murthy had bona fide believed that numberpublication had been effected.
Again, In view of the above, I respectfully submit that I am of the opinion that there was numbergross negligence or any deliberate intention to mislead the Honble High Court on the part of Sri R. Krishna Murthy.
The Office and Department of Commercial Taxes to which Shri Krishna Murthy belongs had numberhing to do with the preparation of the Government Order in question.
the rejoinder makes the categoric statement that the said Government Order was number published only upon the basis that it was number published in the State Government Gazettes of the following three months.
In response to that order, Cecil Noronha, Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka, has made an affidavit on 31st August, 1996.
The statement made to the effect that there was numberpublication of the Government Order in question in Official Gazette companyld have been circumscribed in respect of the period for which he had made a thorough search, namely three months, instead of making it an absolute statement.
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.
The statement was made in a pending proceeding before the High Court at Karnataka.
A companyy of the letter sending it for publication to the State Government Gazette was marked to the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes.
Shri R. Krishna Murthy had himself personally looked through the back numbers of the Karnataka Gazette for a period of 3 months after 27.9.90 having regard to the numbermal practice of State Governments Notification under S.8A of the KST Act being generally published within a week or two of their date of issue.
The said Government Order was prepared and issued by the Commerce and Industries Department of the State Government.
Emphasis supplied 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 .
The statement number turns out to have been incorrect.
One week, thereafter, is given to the appellants to file an affidavit in reply thereto.
It was, he states, his genuine impression that if the said Government Order had been published in the State Government Gazette, it would have been published within a reasonable time from its date and, on this basis, he carefully checked and examined all the Gazettes which were issued during the subsequent three month period and found that it had number been published.
This shall be treated as part heard.
The matter is adjourned for 4 weeks.
He, therefore, believed that it had number been published, having made all sincere and diligent efforts The Government Order states that it issued from the Commerce and Industries Secretariat.
The reason for doing so was the stand of the State Government.
The State Government Gazette dated 7.3.91 is marked as Exhibit A and shall be treated as a part of the record.
Emphasis supplied The said officer has also made an affidavit, in which he apologizes and seeks pardon for his bona fide and unintended mistake.
It was found during the companyrse of the argument that the said Government Order had, in fact, been published in the State Government Gazette dated 7th March, 1991.
No reference was made by the said officer to the Commerce and Industries Secretariat or the relevant files of his own department.
However, in the circumstances of the case, what Sri R. Krishna Murthy had stated may number be companystrued as gross negligence on his part.
