Privilege over quasi-judicial assessment papers fails where correspondence and draft orders are not shown to protect public interest.

Communications and draft orders relating to assessment and penalty proceedings conducted in a quasi-judicial capacity were not protected by privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act. The officers deciding such matters had to act independently on the evidence and could not be directed or advised by higher authorities on how to decide an individual case, so the correspondence was not made in official confidence. Disclosure of settlement papers and draft assessment or penalty orders was not shown to harm public interest merely because it might assist the assessee on appeal. The privilege claim failed because it was directed at strengthening the Department's defence rather than protecting public interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could successfully claim privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act for correspondence and files relating to assessment and penalty proceedings conducted in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Analysis: The assessment and penalty proceedings were judicial in nature, and the officers entrusted with deciding them were required to act independently on the evidence before them. Communications between such officers and higher authorities, made in relation to how an individual case should be assessed or penalised, were not communications made in official confidence because the higher authorities were not entitled to direct or advise the decision in a judicial proceeding. The documents sought related to the settlement and to draft assessment and penalty orders, and their disclosure would not adversely affect public interest merely because they might assist the assessee in the appeal. A claim of privilege cannot be upheld when the real object is to strengthen the Department's defence rather than to protect public interest.

Conclusion: The claim of privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act was rightly rejected.

---