Arbitration evidence and tax record confidentiality: court assistance can compel production of relevant documents, including assessment orders.

Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an enabling provision for court assistance in taking evidence, and it extends to directing a party in possession of relevant documents to produce them for use in arbitration. The provision is not limited to summoning non-parties, and may support production where the documents are necessary for determining the claim on merits. Confidentiality bars under Section 71 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and Section 64 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 protect the department from being compelled to produce returns and records, but do not prevent a party from producing its own assessment orders. The production request was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in arbitration proceedings, the court could be moved under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to direct a party in possession of relevant documents to produce them for evidence. (ii) Whether sales tax assessment orders were protected from production by the confidentiality bar under Section 71 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the corresponding provision in Section 64 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether, in arbitration proceedings, the court could be moved under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to direct a party in possession of relevant documents to produce them for evidence.

Analysis: Section 27 is an enabling provision for court assistance in taking evidence. It is wide enough to cover a request for production of documents from a party as well as from third persons, and is not confined to summoning only non-parties. The scheme of the Act recognises that if a party defaults in producing documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may proceed under Section 25, but that does not eliminate the tribunal's power to seek court assistance where evidence is necessary for deciding the claim on merits. The documents sought were relevant to the quantification of the claim, and a hypothetical computation could not replace actual assessment records.

Conclusion: The request for court assistance under Section 27 was maintainable and the direction to produce the documents was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether sales tax assessment orders were protected from production by the confidentiality bar under Section 71 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the corresponding provision in Section 64 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The confidentiality provisions bar the Government and its servants from being compelled to produce returns, statements, accounts, documents, or records covered by those sections. They do not create an absolute prohibition against a party to the proceedings producing its own assessment orders. The language of the provisions is directed to governmental custody and production, not to exclusion of such material altogether from evidentiary use in private disputes. The party could therefore be directed to produce the assessment orders, even if the department itself could not be compelled to do so.

Conclusion: The confidentiality provisions did not prevent production of the assessment orders by the party concerned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order directing production of the relevant sales tax assessment records was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a broad enabling provision allowing court assistance in taking evidence, including production of documents from a party, and confidentiality provisions governing tax records bar compulsion on the department but do not prohibit production by the assessee or other party to the dispute.

---