Bijoy Kishore Mohant vs. State And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Bijoy Kishore Mohanty, challenged an assessment order passed under Section 43 of the OVAT Act. The petitioner stated an inability to file an appeal due to the unavailability of relevant documents, which were reportedly seized by the Vigilance Department from the premises of Opposite Party No. 7. Notice to Opposite Party No. 7 was returned unserved without a report. The petitioner sought access to these seized documents. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to inspect the seized records in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell), Vigilance Directorate, Cuttack, within two weeks on a mutually convenient date, with advance notice. The petitioner could then obtain copies upon payment of usual charges and avail the appellate remedy.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to inspect the documents seized by the Vigilance Department, provided they are available at the Vigilance Directorate. The reasoning was to enable the petitioner to gather necessary information to pursue their appellate remedy against the assessment order. The Court directed that the petitioner could inspect the records within two weeks on a mutually convenient date, with at least five days' advance notice. Upon inspection, the petitioner would be allowed to obtain copies of the documents upon payment of the usual charges. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files an appeal by March 1, 2023, along with an application for condonation of delay that explains the delay due to the pendency of the present writ petition, the Appellate Authority would consider it in accordance with law. The interim order passed on December 24, 2015, would continue until the appeal is decided, provided it is filed within the stipulated time. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of documents seized by the Vigilance Department, which are crucial for filing an appeal against an assessment order under Section 43 of the OVAT Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the unavailability of essential documents, seized by the Vigilance Department, prevents them from filing a timely and effective appeal against the assessment order. Access to these documents is therefore necessary for pursuing their appellate remedy. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or other opposite parties regarding the petitioner's right to inspect the seized documents or their ability to file an appeal. The focus of the proceedings appears to have been on facilitating the petitioner's access to information to pursue their legal recourse.