Cross-examination and conditional remand: writ court rejects challenge, but quashes assessment orders and limits attachment

A writ court may refuse interference where the complaint of denied cross-examination arises from the petitioner's own failure to produce the third-party witnesses, especially when summons were issued and acknowledgements were recorded. That challenge was rejected here. However, the Court granted limited discretionary relief by quashing the revision assessment orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits, and directing that the named persons be produced as witnesses in the reassessment. It also allowed further payment in instalments and confined the attachment order to the balance tax due, with disposal to be completed within a fixed time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned revision assessment orders were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the third parties were not produced for cross-examination; (ii) whether the matter called for partial relief by way of quashing the orders, remand for fresh consideration, and modification of the attachment order.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned revision assessment orders were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the third parties were not produced for cross-examination.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that summons had been issued to the three named persons through RPAD and that two summons were acknowledged, while one was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was not available at the address. The petitioner had sought a voluntary arrangement for cross-examination but did not take steps to produce the witnesses. The Court held that the Department could not be expected to summon the petitioner's witnesses and that, if produced by the petitioner, the Department would be entitled to cross-examine them.

Conclusion: The challenge based solely on non-production of the third parties for cross-examination was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter called for partial relief by way of quashing the orders, remand for fresh consideration, and modification of the attachment order.

Analysis: In view of the amount already deposited by the petitioner and the need to afford one further opportunity, the Court exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant limited relief. The impugned revision assessment orders were quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh orders on merits, subject to the petitioner producing the named persons as witnesses. The Court also directed further deposit in instalments and restricted the attachment to the balance tax due, with consequential disposal within a fixed time.

Conclusion: Partial relief was granted to the petitioner by quashing the impugned orders, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, and limiting the attachment to the balance demand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions resulted in limited interference, with the assessments sent back for reconsideration on conditions and the attachment order correspondingly curtailed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may decline to interfere on a complaint of denied cross-examination where the party failed to take steps to produce its own witnesses, while still granting conditional remand and ancillary relief in the interests of fair adjudication.

---