Court denies mandamus for additional documents in defense against show cause notices, ruling in favor of respondent.

The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking a mandamus to compel the respondent to provide additional documents for defense in response to show cause notices. The court found that the documents relied upon in the notices had been provided to the petitioners, and the request for further documents was deemed unnecessary. As the petitioners had the opportunity to collect non-relied upon records within a specified timeframe, the court concluded that there was no basis to grant the writ petitions, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent and denying any costs.

---

---

Issues:
- Petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to furnish documents for effective defense.
- Allegation of respondent proceeding with adjudication without considering representations and providing necessary documents.
- Petitioners contending violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of information.
- Respondent arguing that documents relied upon in show cause notices have been provided, and the request for additional documents is a delay tactic.
- Allegations of evasion of central excise duties by petitioners leading to the issuance of show cause notices.
- Petitioners seeking copies of various documents and information for their defense.
- Respondent providing acknowledgment of documents provided to petitioners.
- Court's observation on the documents furnished and the lack of necessity for additional documents.
- Court noting that petitioners had the opportunity to collect non-relied upon records within a specified time frame.

Analysis:

The petitioners in two writ petitions sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to provide documents necessary for their defense in response to show cause notices issued by the respondent. The petitioners argued that without the requested documents, they would not be able to effectively defend their rights or respond to the notices. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the documents relied upon in the show cause notices had already been provided, and the petitioners' request for additional documents was an attempt to delay the proceedings.

The court examined the contentions of both parties and noted that the show cause notices were issued based on the intelligence gathered by the respondent regarding the alleged evasion of central excise duties by the petitioners. The court observed that the documents referred to in the show cause notices had been furnished to the petitioners, including three volumes of enclosures. The court also highlighted that the documents sought by the petitioners in their representations had not been relied upon in the show cause notices, except for the seizure mahazar, which had also been provided to the petitioners.

Furthermore, the court noted that the show cause notices explicitly allowed the petitioners to collect any non-relied upon records within 30 days of receiving the notices. Since the petitioners did not claim that the documents referred to in the notices had not been provided or relied upon by the respondent, the court found no basis to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to furnish additional documents. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions for lacking merit, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded in the matter.

---