Court allows review in W.P. case due to delay and concealment, emphasizes transparency and procedural fairness.

The Court allowed the application for review in W.P. (C) No. 21861 of 2016, recalling the previous order due to the petitioner's intentional delay and concealment of crucial facts. The writ petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a show cause, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural requirements for fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Review of modification of order in W.P. (C) No. 21861 of 2016 - Suppression of facts by the writ petitioner - Compliance with pre-show cause notice consultation requirements.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a review of the modification of an order in W.P. (C) No. 21861 of 2016, alleging that the writ petitioner had suppressed crucial facts during the proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage based on submissions by the petitioner's counsel. The opposite party failed to provide relevant documents during the pre-show cause notice stage, leading to a request for clarification by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not attend a consultation meeting and subsequently, a show cause notice was issued based on documents A to C, which included the audited balance sheet of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's balance sheet was included in the documents supplied, which was not clarified during the admission due to lack of instructions. Thus, a modification of the order was sought based on this alleged suppression of facts.

The writ petitioner contended that the documents in question belonged to them, but they had requested further clarification from the Department before the show cause notice was issued. The petitioner approached the Court citing instructions from the Central Board of Excise and Customs mandating pre-show cause notice consultations for cases involving duty demands exceeding a specified amount. The demand-cum-show cause notice was issued without providing the opportunity for pre-consultation, leading to the petitioner seeking redress through the legal process.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court noted that the pre-show cause notice for consultation had been issued to the writ petitioner, who had delayed the process intentionally. It was found that the petitioner had concealed the fact that the documents in question were their audited balance sheets. The Court allowed the application for review, recalling the previous order passed in W.P. (C) No. 21861 of 2016. The writ petitioner was given the opportunity to file a show cause, which would be considered in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of transparency and compliance with procedural requirements in such matters to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

---