N. Surjamani, J.
1. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides it appears to me that the petitioner, namely Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to refund to the writ petitioner-Company forthwith the sum of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum thereon so far deposited by the writ petitioner with the respondent on 12.12.86, and for a direction to the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the impugned Show Cause Notice dt. 8.12.86 bearing No. V- 44/Adj/86 issued by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Shillong--the 2nd respondent herein, and for passing further or other order or orders which this Court deems it proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. According to the writ petitioner it is a Registered Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956) having its registered office at Bawri Mansions, Dhankheti, Shillong, Meghalaya; and factory at Byrnihat, within the State of Meghalaya, and the writ petitioner has been dealing in manufacturing plywoods and is the only industrial concern of the nature within the State of Meghalaya and is engaged in dealing with the manufactured products throughout India and they are manufacturing the same under Central Excise Licence L-4 No. 1/Meghalaya/Plywood/II/Class/SH/74 and presently with registration No. 13/SH/92 dtd. 18. 11. 72 and that since its inception in 1973, it has been dealing with the said business paying regularly the leviable duties to the concerned authority without any blemish whatsoever and they have been following and adhering strictly to the relevant Rules and procedures prescribed by law. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that to their utter astonishment and surprise, the respondents had illegally made search in the premises of the Head Office of the writ-petitioner-company as well as of their factory premises simultaneously on 25th February, 1986 and the respondents seized almost all the documents of the writ-petitioner-company so as to harass the writ-petitioner unnecessarily for reasons best known to them, and, rather, the respondents have gone to the extent of publicising in the newspapers stating therein that the petitioner-company evaded excise duties in terms of lacs of rupees just to defame the petitioner and mar the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner-company with its constituent clients and public in general. Thereafter the petitioner-company has been served with a Show-Cause Notice under the impugned order/ notice dtd. 8. 12. 1986, as in Annexure-I to the writ petition, by the respondents by invoking the provisions of law laid down under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 233-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made under the said Act, and directed the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duties should not be realised and penalty should not be imposed and the land, building, plant, machinery, materials etc. should not be confiscated under the relevant provision of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner went on to contend that the said Show-Cause Notice and the proceedings initiated by the respondents are wholly illegal and invalid and it was done without jurisdiction and also in excess of jurisdiction. According to the writ-petitioner the demands so far made by the respondents is barred by limitation as the same was made after expiry of six months from the relevant date in view of the provisions laid down under Section 11A of the Act. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that on the own admission of the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Shillong--2nd respondent herein--under his office letter dtd. 11. 12. 86, as in Annexure--II to the writ petition, that the said Show Cause Notice was signed and issued without application of mind and before going through the annexures thereof which has been sent to him only after issuance of the impugned Show-Cause Notice; the 2nd respondent indicated that there could not be sufficient evidence for proving undervaluation unless this bills indicating representative sale of the goods are included; and the 2nd respondent further directed the 3rd respondent to look into this aspect and ensure in future that the Show-Cause Notice complete in all respect is sent to him for signature thereby exonerated the writ-petitioner virtually annulling purported show cause Notice dated 8.12. 86, as in Annexure-I to the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the impugned Show-Cause Notice was issued before the completion of inquiry or investigation in the matter, and as such the impugned Show-cause Notice is illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void, and ab-initio. The respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3, forced the writ-petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 12.12.86 under a related Cheque No. 0004764 dated. 12.12.86 immediately after the impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86 was issued and despite the orders passed on 11.12.86 by the 2nd respondent as stated above. Having no alternative, the writ petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 12.12.86 and the same has not yet been refunded to the writ petitioner, thereby causing immense loss and financial hardship to the writ-petitioner. Despite repeated reminders and letters sent by the writ petitioner, the respondents had failed to refund the said sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the writ petitioner and that the respondents withhold the said sum of Rs. 5 lacs without any justification till to-day. According to the writ petitioner, the alleged search and seizure made by the respondents was in complete violation and infraction of the provisions of the law laid down under Section 12 and 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act and Sections 103, 105(i), 110, 165, 210 and 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the respondents had failed to refund the said sum of Rs. 5 lacs so far deposited by the writ petitioner and rather, failure on the part of the respondents to give an effective opportunity of inspection of the illegally seized documents and failure to supply copies of the said documents so far seized by them, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 10(H)88 in the Court of the learned Munsiff at Shillong. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the entire action of the respondents in the matter under this writ petition and sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5 lacs and also for quashing the impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86, as in Annexure-I to the writ petition, and for restraining and prohibiting the respondent No. 2 from proceeding with the matter under the impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86.
3. The case of the writ petitioner-Company is resisted and contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by filing counter affidavit and contending inter alia that the writ petitioner had filed a Civil Suit before the learned Munsiff at Shillong vide Title Suit No. 10(H) of 1988 for the same relief sought for by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable at all. According to the contesting respondents, upon intelligence report to the fact that the writ petitioner has been systematically evading the Central Excise Duties by manipulating the Central Excise Gate Passes by cunning devices and in gross violation of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173/C, F.G. and 221 of the Central Excise Rule of 1944 and are supplying their manufactured plywoods in different parts all over India, the Preventive Branch of the Central Excise Department made an action plan and simultaneously raided the relevant places all over India including the office premises of the writ petitioner on 25.2.1986 and seized large number of incriminating documents which clearly revealed that a systematic evasion of a total sum of Rs. 64,13,941.70p of Central Excise Duties. After proper scrutiny of the seized documents, the respondents drew up a proceeding as provided under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 against the writ petitioner and served a statutory Show-Cause Notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 233-A of the Central Excise Rules vide impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86 requiring the writ-petitioner to show-cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the evaded Central Excise duties amounting to Rs. 64,13,941.70p should not be realised from the writ petitioner, and, as to why the penalty should not be imposed as provided under the law, and also to state if the petitioner desires to be heared in person. It is also the case of the respondents that after receipt of the aforesaid Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86 the writ-petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs towards Excise Duties payable by the writ petitioner but did not submit the required Show Cause, instead, the petitioner began to take time for as many as seven/eight times, that is, on 27.1.87, 7.5.87, 6.7.87, 17.9.87, 18.12.87, 30.6.88 and finally on 20.8.88, and thereafter the writ petitioner filed the Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 10(H) 1988 in the court of Learned Munsiff at Shillong and obtained an injunction order stalling the entire proceedings till to-day, and thereafter the writ petitioner filed this writ petition for the same relief sought for by the writ petitioner in the said Civil Suit for refund of the said sum of Rs. 5 lacs paid towards Central Excise Duties.
4. Sri V.K. Bhattra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-Company at the very outset contended that the impugned Show-Cause Notice was served and signed by the 2nd respondent without proper application of his mind in the matter and there is no subjective satisfaction in the matter and, rather, the same is not tenable in the eye of law as the order/letter dated 11.12.86, as in Annexure-II to the writ petition, establish the fact that the 2nd respondent had reviewed it's own order/impugned show-cause Notice dated 8.12.86 on their own admission and the 2nd respondent has no right to proceed with the proceedings under the impugned show-cause notice dated 8.12.86. Sri Bhattra further contended that the search and seizure at the premises of the writ-petitioner-Company was made by the respondents concerned in complete violation and infraction of the provisions of the law laid down under Sections 100, 103, 105(1), 110, 165, 210 and 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, such search and seizure is illegal. On the basis of the information collected by the respondents from such illegal search and seizure no such impugned show-cause Notice can be issued by the respondents to the writ petitioner, hence such impugned Show-Cause Notice deserves to be set aside, Sri Bhattra contended. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner Sri Bhattra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, had relied upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts reported in : 1988(36)ELT445(Cal) , 1981 ELT 389 (Del), : 1989(42)ELT338(SC) , 1983 ELT 1342 (SC), AIR 1964 1 (Gau) (FB), : [1968]1SCR148 , 1994(2) GLR 239 (Gau), : 1954CriLJ1029 , 1978 ELT 294 (SC), 1979 ELT 613 (SC), : [1954]1SCR1122 , 1988 GHC 165 (Gau), : [1980]1SCR1170 and 1978 ELT J 613 (SC) and contended that the respondents ought to have refunded the sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the writ petitioner as the respondents passed the impugned show- cause Notice without jurisdiction or in the alternative in excess of jurisdiction as well as the search and seizure was made not in accordance with the law as submitted.
5. At the hearing Sri M.Z. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the writ petition is defeated by delay and laches, the same is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is alternative remedy available for appeal under the relevant Acts and Rules; the writ petitioner concealed the real existing facts of the case while filing the writ petition; and that the writ petitioner did not approach the Hon'ble High Court with clean hands in the present case.
6. Now this Court is to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has an enforcible right in the instant case: and whether the present writ petition is defeated by delay and laches; and whether the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy for ventilating his grievances or not and lastly whether the writ petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands or not.
7. It is an admitted fact that the impugned Show-Cause Notice was issued by the respondents concerned on 8.12.86, as in Annexure-I to the writ petition and the writ petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned Show-Cause Notice after more than six years from the date of passing/issuing the impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86. No sufficient cause has been shown by the writ petitioner for causing the delay in filing the present writ petition after a lapse of more than six years from the date of passing of the impugned Show-Cause Notice of 8.12.86. In my considered view this writ petition deserves its outright rejection on this ground of delay and laches alone. It was held in Slate of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal and Ors. : [1987]1SCR1 that the High Court in exercising its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiscent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction. It was, further held that evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to extra ordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay it may have to effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on 3rd and 4th parties. It was pointed out that when the writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weigh with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
8. Secondly, there is alternative remedy available for the petitioner inasmuch as the writ petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority in the form of an appeal if the petitioner is really aggrieved by the impugned Show-Cause Notice and subsequent action of the respondent concerned under the related provisions of law laid down under Chapter VIA of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. All remedies are available in the said Act, but the writ petitioner did not avail such remedy as required under the law, instead, the writ petitioner approached this Writ Court after a lapse of more than six years from the date of impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86, as in Annexure-I to the writ petition, thus concealing express provisions of law for such remedy as contemplated under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is also noteworthy to high-light that the factum of the illegal search and seizure as urged and contended by the writ petition, which is denied by the respondents, is a disputed question of facts for which this Court cannot go into that and decide the same on its merit as it is beyond the writ jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage I hereby recall a decision of the apex Court rendered in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and Ors. reported in : [1975]2SCR71 , in which the Apex Court held that when a petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Same thing happened in the instant case also which involves complex question of facts and same cannot be decided by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. So far as the law laid down in respect of the alternative remedy a reference can be made to the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in India Trade Promotion Organisation v. Dy. Assessor and Collector M.C. D. and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 Del 74, and also another case namely Namakkal South India Transports v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. reported in : AIR1997Ker56 , wherein the concerned High Courts held that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the concerned writ petitioners have alternative remedy under the Act. In this regard the Apex Court in a case between Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. and Ors. v. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy and Ors. reported in : [1997]3SCR1160 held that the proper forum under the Companies Act being available for considering the grievance of the petitioner, resorting to writ petition would not be appropriate and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. In the instant case also appropriate forum under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 being available, as mentioned above, for considering the grievance of present writ petitioner, a resort to the present writ petition so far adopted and taken by the writ petitioner namely, M/s. Meghalaya Plywoods Ltd. would not be appropriate. On this account alone this writ petition also deserves its outright rejection and dismissal. Apart from this, the present writ petitioner had failed to approach this Court as expeditiously as possible as discussed above. It is well-settled that the remedy in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable remedy, and, therefore, people seeking for equity must approach the Court as expeditiously as possible. Delay defeats equity is an accepted principle of Rule of Law, more so when the case is meritless as in the case at hand. In this regard a reference can be made to a decision of this Court rendered in Buddha Dev Roy v. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (1997) 2 Gau LR 48. In the instant case also the writ petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of more than six years from the date of the issuance of impugned Show-Cause Notice as mentioned above and as such, such inordinate delay defeats equity which is an accepted principle of Rule of Law. It is well established principles of law that in a Taxing statute one has to look merely on what is normally said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Even if there be a casusomissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. This principle of law finds its place in a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Shrimati Tarulata Shyam and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported in : [1977]108ITR345(SC) . In the present case in hand the impugned show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the competent authority as required by the related provisions of law under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the related Rules thereunder, and the opportunity had been afforded to the writ petitioner for his say in the matter but the writ petitioner had failed to do so by urging this or that which this Court is to depreciate the action of the writ petitioner in the matter. Moreover, the writ petitioner concealed, rather suppressed, the facts of the case inasmuch as the writ petitioner simply stated in the writ petition that having no other course, the writ petitioner filed Title Suit No. 10(H) 88 before the learned Munsiff at Shillong but not disclosing the relief or reliefs which the petitioner sought for in the said Title Suit No. 10(H) 88. On perusal of the plaint as in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it has been revealed that the writ petitioner in the said civil suit sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the present respondents, their agents, associates, representatives and others from proceeding any further with the proceedings initiated under the aforementioned Show-Cause Notice dated 8.12.86 and for declaration that such Show-Cause Notice is illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and null and void ab-initio.
9. In my considered view the subject matter involved in the present writ petition is directly and substantially in issue in the aforementioned Suit, Title Suit No. 10(H) 88. Moreover, the petitioner has no right to move the Court for invoking the writ jurisdiction and for enforcement of his right on a petition viz, the writ petition containing misleading and inaccurate statements mentioned above. I am also of the view that the decisions and the rulings cited by Sri V.K. Bhattra do not help the case of the petitioner.
10. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on both sides and on perusal of the available materials on record, and also applying the established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, I am of the view that the writ petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and rather the writ petitioner has no enforceable right in the instant case.
11. For the reasons and observations made above, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), which shall be paid by the writ petitioner Company to the respondents within a period of one week from to-day.