Gauhati High Court
Satyaranjan Saha vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 29 September, 1999
JUDGMENT
1. This writ application has been filed by the writ petitioner to quash the penalty order dated 31.7.1997 and 10.2.1998 passed by the Inspector of Taxes, Mangaldoi for the assessment year 1997-98 imposing penalty of Rs. 3,22,2000 (Rupees three lakhs twenty two thousand two hundred), that is, Annexures-6 and 11 to the writ application. Annexure-6, the order is dated 31.7.1997 and the order is passed under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. We will come to the orders at a later point of time.
2. At the time of argument Shri Saikla also argued that he also took up the point regarding the validity of the notification issued on 2nd July, 1993. That contention is available at paragraph-42 of the writ application and that is quoted below:-
"42. That the petitioner respectfully states that the delegation of power to impose penalty under Section 44(5)(b) of the Act to the Inspector of Taxes vide notification No. CTS-3/92/15 dated 2nd July, 1993, issued by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of the Act is ultravires the provisions of Rule 10 of the Assam General sales Tax Rules, 1993, inasmuch as Rule 10 expressly debars such delegation to any officer below the rank of a superintendent and is such the said notification is violative of Section.3(3) of the Act, and is liable to be quashed."
Provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act are reproduced below: subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed the Commissioner may by order in writing, delegate any of his powers under the Act to any person appointed to assist him under Sub-section (1)."
3. Rule 10 is quoted below:-
The power to call for returns, to make assessment, to cancel or rectify them, to impose a penalty, to compound offences and to order maintenance of accounts shall not be delegated to any officers below the rank of a Superintendent."
4. It may be stated herein that during the pendency of this Civil Rule an amendment was introduced to the Assam General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter called Rules) by inserting a proviso to Rule 10 and it came into force on 22nd of September, 1998. This writ application was filed on 20.5.1998. That proviso is quoted below:-
"3. In the principal Rules to rule 10, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided that the power to impose penalty under Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 44 and under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 46 may be delegated to the Inspector of Taxes."
The stand of the department is that this proviso is not by way explanation and is only declaratory in nature."
5. The brief facts are as follows:-
The petitioner herein was registered dealer for Supari and the registration certificate No. was 361163 granted by the authority. It further appears that he did business only for one year and the admitted position is that he stopped doing business from 1.4.1995 and the certificate of registration was on his prayer returned to him as he made a declaration that he is not doing business after 1.4.1995 as he has faced loss and gone out of treatment. Thereafter he filed an application in Assamese (No. date is mentioned in the application). The application is Annexure-XIII to the affidavit-in-reply. The photocopy given in Annexure-XIII is not the correct translation and that position is also admitted by Shri Saikia. I make the translation of this application with the consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
To The Superintendent of Taxes, Mangaldoi.
Ref : Registration No.MGL/GST-163.
Sir, I have the honour to state that I had been carrying on the business of selling and purchasing goods like paddy, rice, raw jute, raw batalment and Supari from 1.4.1995, I closed business as I suffered heavy loss and being ill I went outside for treatment. Now from January, 1996 I am doing business in small quantity of paddy, raw batalnut along with some quantity of supari.
So it is prayed that you will be kind enough so that the certificate which has been returned to your office, the date may be changed and necessary order may be passed so that I can earn my livelihood.
6. There is no date in his application as pointed above, put on by the dealer, but it was received by the Superintendent of Taxes on 20.2.1997 and that also finds reference in the order at Annexure-6. But the question is whether it is an application for registration as to be made under Section 11 of the Act. That Section is quoted below: -
" 11. (1) Every dealer liable to pay tax under the provisions of this Act shall get himself registered with the Assessing Officer and shall possess a certificate of registration.
(2) Every dealer required by Sub-section (1) to be registered shall apply for registration to the Assessing Officer in the prescribed manner and obtain a certificate of registration.
(3) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (2) the Assessing Officer shall, if he is satisfied after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary that the application is in order, register the applicant."
7. Rule 21 of the Rules is quoted below: -
"21.(1) Every person liable to get himself registered under Section 11 shall submit to the Assessing Officer of the area in which his principal place of business is situated, an application for registration within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules. 1993, if he was carrying on business on such date and within thirty days from the date of his becoming so liable if he commence his business after the date of such publication of the rules.
(2) An application for registration under Section 11 shall be made to the Assessing officer -
(a) In a case covered by Sub-section (3) of the Section 7, not later than thirty days from the date on which the dealer concerned makes the first sale of any goods in respect of the purchases of which he has furnished a declaration under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) or, as the case may be, not later than thirty days from the date on which the dealer makes the first sale of any goods in the manufacture of which a declaration has been furnished by the dealer as aforesaid;
(b) In any other case, not later than thirty days from the date on which the dealer's gross turnover amount to or exceeds the taxable quantum as specified in Sub-section (7) of Section 8;
(c) in a case covered by Section 51, in such manner as provided in that section and not later than thirty days from transfer.
(3) The application shall be made in Form-II."
8. The application for registration has been prescribed in Form No.II and the application which has been filed by the petitioner can not be' deemed to be an application of registration as provided under Section 11 or under Rule 21 read with Form-II.
9. That the petitioner filed an application for registration, that is categorically denied in the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein in paragraph-7 is stated as follows:-
"7. That the statements made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition are not correct and the same are hereby denied by this deponent in fact the petitioner has made false statements with an intention to improve his case. The dealer was registered on 3.7.1997, that is after seizure. Hence till this date of seizure there was no accountant engaged. It was declared only on 7.7.1997. Even the application for registration was done after seizure. Hence the petitioner's . contention that the books of accounts were removed on the date of seizure for preparing monthly returns etc. is false and misleading."
10. So this claim of the petitioner is not factually correct. The petitioner deliberately made a false and misleading statement. On 11.6.1997 the Inspector of Taxes, respondent No. 5 went to the Godown of the petitioner and found 385 bags of Supari stored in the Godown and the petitioner made a written declaration on 11.6.1997 and not earlier to it. Annexure-2 to the writ application is a notice by the authority for production of certain documents. The declaration made by the petitioner is available in the record produced by the Government and signed by the petitioner. That declaration reads as follows: -
"I Shri Satya Ranjan Saha do hereby declare that I have got 385 Bags of raw-supari in my business premises at Kharupetia on 11.6.1997."
11. Having obtained that declaration a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Act of 1993 to produce the documents. That notice is Annexure-2 to the writ application and that is quoted below:-
Annexure-2 To Sri Satya Ranjan Saha, Tillapatty, Kharupetia, Whereas in connection with the verification of your books of account for year ending 31.3.1997 you are hereby required to produce the following documents to-day on the 27th June 1997 at 4 p.m. at your business premises.
Failure to produce the same will attract penal action as per provision of law.
Documents to be produced-
(1) Cash book and ledger.
(2) Stock register of goods.
(3) Purchase Voucher of raw materials.
(4) Any other documents relating to the business.
Sd/-
Illigible.
Inspector of Taxes. Mongaldoi."
12. As the petitioner failed to produce the documents as demanded in the notices, on the same day vide Annexure-3, the 385 Bags of Supari were seized and the ground of seizure is that no purchase register nor stock register of goods stored in the godown were produced and this may be with an intention to evade taxes. Even bag of Supari weighed 100 Kgs. The seizure was made by the Inspector of Taxes in presence of witnesses and the seized goods were handed over to the petitioner for safe custody with an instruction not to sell it without any instruction from the authority. Thereafter a notice was issued on 30.6.1997 asking for verification of books of account. That notice reads as follows: -
"With reference to the above you are hereby required to produce your Books of Account on 20.7.1997 of 385 Bags of Supari on 20.7.1997."
13. This notice was received on behalf of the petitioner, and the wife of the petitioner sent a reply on 5.7.1997 along with account of the petitioner and he produced some books of account and on 7.7.1997 after giving a hearing to the petitioner the books of account were not accepted as on review of the following grounds: -
1. The books of account are of same hand writing, written in single sitting and accounts books, purchase and sale vouchers seems to be new.
2. There are credit purchase from 1.4.1997 to 9.6.1997 but there is no corresponding sale which seems to be unpracticable.
3. The dealer has not submitted any monthly statement from April, 1997 onwards before the date of seizure.
4. There is no records of payments against the credit purchase book (being credit purchase) even upto date of the verification of accounts.
5. The dealer could not produce any accounts on 11.6.1997 on which the dealer's premises/godown was visited and obtained declaration on about the stock of 385 bags of Supari. Further accounts could not be produced even on the date of seizure. Had there been accounts from the earlier period the dealer could have produced the accounts on 11.6.1997 and on 27.6.1997.
6. It appears form the application of the dealer dated 21.2.1997 that the dealer had been dealing in supari, paddy and rice in small quantity since January, 1990. But the accounts produced by the dealer records transaction from 1995. This shows that either the dealers petition or his accounts are not correct.
7. In the light of these it can safely be presumed that the accounts are after-made affair.
14. Having arrived at this findings a notice was issued on 19.7.1997 vide Annexure-4 to show cause as to why penalty shall not be imposed as provided Under Section 44(5)(b) of the Act of 1993. He was also asked to show cause on 25.7.1997. The wife on 25th of July, 1997 filed an application which reads as follows:-
Annexure-5 To The Inspector of Taxes, Mangaldoi, Dated.
Kharupetia , the 25th July, 1997.
Ref : Your notice No. 475 dt. 19.7.1997.
Sir, With due respectfully to state that I have received your notice on 24.7.1997. but my husband "Satya Ranjan Saha" is out of station for medical treatment.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Sipra Saha, Wife of Satya Ranjan Saha, Kahrupetia, Darrang, Assam."
15. There was no prayer for extension of time of submission nor any prayer for placing the accounts before the authority and vide Annexure-6 on 31.7.1997 the authority came to the following findings:-
"(a) The dealer deals in taxable goods but does not maintain accounts at the business premises.
(b) The accounts produced afterwards cannot be accepted as true and complete.
(c) The accounts produced afterwards seem to be made after the seizure.
(d) There is no proper response to the show cause notice.
All this events justify imposition of the full penalty Under/Section 44(5)(b). The value of the seizure supari is determined at Ks. 13.42,530 taking in account of the prevailing market price.
On the value as determined above the tax is determined at Rs. 1,07,400. Accordingly, the penalty liable comes to Rs. 3,22,200 being three times lax payable. I accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 3,22,200 Under/Section 44(5)(b). Issue demand notice ask the dealer to clean the penalty by 12.8.1997. failing which the seizes goods will be put on auction for open sale."
16. An appeal was filed and vide Annexure-8 the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeal), Guwahati on 30.9.1997 rejected the same on two grounds:-
(i) That an appeal does not He under Section 31 of the Act, at best a Revision may lie.
(ii) That on merit also the appeal can not be entertained and accordingly the order of imposition of penalty was up-held.
17. Thereafter a Revision was filed before the Commissioner of Taxes and vide Annexure-9 on 24.12.1997 the Commissioner, inter-alia, passed the following order:-
The main grounds mentioned by the seizing officer are that there were credit purchases from 1.4.1997 to 9.6.1997, but there were no corresponding sales and there was no record of payment against the credit purchases even upto the date of verification of records, though large bulk of the purchases were shown as credit purchases. It is impossible that all credit sellers will wait for months together to gel their payment. It leads to the obvious interference that the credit purchases are shown through fabrication with the intention to avoid showing the source of fund which is necessary in case of cash purchase. The delay in submission of the records and books of account confirms such inference.
But without depending on the logical inference only, the position can bettor be ascertained by facts if a little further investigation is made by the seizing officer on the following points:-
(1) Identify the credit sellers, at least some of them, ascertain their financial condition and examine whether they were in a position to afford such credit sale involving delayed payment.
(2) Whether such credit purchase sale is generally in vogue in the purchase and sale supari.
(3) Whether the payment has since been made to the credit sellers by the petitioner and if so, what was his source of fund for such payment, especially when the stock is held up.
(4) Any other relevant point.
The case is accordingly remanded to the seizing officer Shri B. Barman, Inspector of Taxes, Mangaldoi for disposal as above. The stay order given on 11.11.1997 stands vacated to facilitate disposal of the case as per this order, by the seizing officer.
The revision petition is thus disposed of as above.
Return to the seizing officer the records submitted by him."
18. Thereafter the Inspector of Taxes vide Annexure-10 issued notice to the petitioner to make the investigation as directed by the Commissioner. It was also directed by the authorities that credit sellers may be produced before him and at that point of time a show cause notice was also served and that is, Annexure-7. Thereafter vide Annexure-11, the Inspector of Taxes found as follows:-
"(1) The dealer furnished a list containing the names of Credit Sellers numbering 68. But only three credit sellers were produced for personal verification.
(2) It was also found that credit sale and purchase is found to be involved, but such credit sellers are limited in number and/or 68 credit sellers not available and that also for an amount of Rs. 11,42,500 (Rupees eleven lakhs Forty two thousand and five hundred). The three credit sellers who were produced, they have been tutored."
19. Regarding the source of money it was found that he claims to have received the following amount from these sources during the month of July, 1997:-
(1) Sale of credit of Rs. 1,00,430 (Rupees one lakh four hundred thirty) received ail-along from M/s Sipra Rani Saha, the wife of the petitioner on 1.7.1997 to 19.7.1997. On 1.7.1997 sale of credit of Rs. 19,500 (Rupees nineteen thousand five hundred) was received from M/s Sipra Rani Saha. On 2.7.1997 the sale of credit of Rs. 19,700 (Rupees nineteen thousand seven hundred) was received from Manoranjan Saha. So all the money available to him only after seizure, not earlier to it. In the order, Annexure-11 it is stated as follows:-
"From the above it is quite obvious that the dealer have to inflate his credit purchases from April, 1997 to 9th June 1997 in view of the seizure of goods. That there been no seizure of the goods the above credit purchases would not have been accounted for by the dealer. It is further observed that the returns from 1995 upto date including the application for registration were submitted by the dealer that It is obligatory on the part of the dealer to furnish monthly return. It is therefore evident that the dealer manipulated the books of account and the returns were submitted accordingly.
In view of the above discussion I am fully satisfied that the goods seized by me on 27.6.1997 are not supported by proper books of account and therefore my penalty order dated 31.7.1997 is fully justified and legally correct.. As such it stands and necessary demand notice is being issued."
19. Against this order also a Revision will lie before the authority Under/Section 36(2) which is quoted below:-
"36(2) In the case of any order passed by a person appointed to assist the Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, not being an order to which Sub-section (1) applies, and not being an order against which (an) appeal under Section 33 has been filed or an order in respect of which the time allowed for appeal under Section (33) has not expired, the Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application made in the prescribed manner by the dealer or person affected by such order, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such orders thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person to whom the order relates as he thinks fit."
20. No revision was filed and this writ application has been filed with the prayers as indicated above.
21. I have heard Shri N. Salkia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smti. G. Deka, learned Advocate and Shri K.H.Choudhury, learned Advocate assisted by Mrs. D. Das. learned Advocate for the respondents. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and also an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned advocate for the respondents has also produced before me the original record of the case. The learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saikia makes the following submissions:-
(1) The Inspector of Taxes has no authority to pass an order of penalty and this is against Rule 10 of the Rules quoted above.
(2) The question of seizure does not arise as already written declaration was made.
(3) That after assessing the tax only penalty can be imposed.
22. Section 44(1)(3) and (5)(a) and (b) of the Act are quoted below:-
"44.(1) Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, any authority, appointed under Subsection (1) of Section 3, may either before or after assessment, require any dealer to produce before it or him any accounts, registers or documents or to furnish any information relating to the financial transactions of the dealer, the profit derived from such transactions and the stock of goods produced, raised, processed, manufactured, bought, sold or delivered by such dealer and the dealer shall comply with such requirement.
(3) If any authority appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 has reason to suspect that any dealer is to evade the payment of any tax or any clearing or forwarding agent or a person transporting goods or any owner of a warehouse or a godown is keeping or has kept his account in such a manner as is likely to cause evasion of tax payable under this Act, such authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers or documents of the dealer or the clearing or forwarding agent or the person transporting goods or the owner of a warehouse or godown as may be necessary and shall grant a receipt for the same, such seized accounts, registers or documents shall be retained for so long as may be reasonably necessary for examination thereof for prosecution under Section 57 and shall thereafter be returned to the person concerned in the prescribed manner;
(5)(a) Any authority referred to in Sub-section (1) shall have the power to enter into and search any office, shop, godown or any other place of business or any building or any place of the dealer, or of a Dalai, or of an owner of a warehouse, or of a clearing, booking or forwarding agent, or of a person transporting goods or vessels or goods carrier and seize any goods which are found therein but not accounted for by the dealer or the Dalai, or the owner of the warehouse, or the clearing, booking or forwarding agent, or the person transporting goods in his books, accounts, registers and other documents.
Provided that a list of all the goods seized under this Sub-section shall be prepared by such officers and be signed by the officer, the dealer or the person incharge of goods or the person incharge of the premises, and not less than two witnesses.
(b) The authority referred to in Clause (a), shall,, in a case where the dealer or the person incharge of goods as mentioned in clause (a) fails to produce any evidence or satisfy the said authority regarding the proper accounting of goods, impose penalty, after giving an opportunity of being heard in the prescribed manner to the dealer or such person which shall be equal or three times the amount of tax calculated on the value of such goods and the goods shall be released as soon as the penalty is paid."
23. It should be noted that Section 44 appears at Chapter-IX of the Act and Chapter-IX is with regard to accounts, inspection, search and seizure, restrictions on movement of goods and power to call for information.
24. The first question in this case is that whether the amendment to the Rule is declaratory and/or it is by way of explanation. If it is merely declaratory and/or by way of explanation the Rule will be retrospective. If any authority is required for this proposition of law, one can see 1968 S.C. 1165 (Nair Service Society Limited, Appellant v. K.C. Alexender and Others, Respondents). There the Supreme Court pointed out that the amendment of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act in the year 1963 replacing earlier Articles 142 and 144, and the Supreme Court in that connection in paragraph-14 pointed out that the amendment is not explanatory and declaratory in nature. In AIR 1970 SC 349 (Channan Singh and Anr., Appellants v. Jai Kaur, respondent), the Supreme Court pointed out that the amendment Act of 1964 was merely by way of clarification or declaratory in nature, even if the absence of the amendment that will be the interpretation of law. In 1990 SC 2300 Punjab Traders and Ors., Appellants v. State of Punjab and Ors., Respondent), the Supreme Court pointed out that the amendment made in E.P. Molassee (Control) Amendment Act. 1973 is merely clarificatory. Its object is to clarify the Principal Act. Once I hold that this amendment of the Rules is merely clarificatory and/or declaratory as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the challenge to the notification has to fall through, the notification as relevant for the case is quoted below:-
"No.CTS-3/92/15 dated 2nd July, 1993 - In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section - 3 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1993, (Assam Act XII of 1993) read with rule 8 of the Rules made thereunder, the powers of the Commissioner under Sections-42, 43, 44, 46 and 47 of the said Act are hereby delegated with effect from 1st July, 1993 to the officers mentioned in Column (1) of the Schedule below to be exercised within the areas specified in column (2) thereof Sl. No. Column (1) Assessing officers Headquarters Column(2) Areas in which powers are to be exercised.
40. Inspector of Taxes, Mangaldoi Unit Mangaldoi The Areas under Mangaldoi Unit Office.
Otherwise also even in the absence of the amendment the Inspector of Taxes shall have the power to impose the penalty in view of the fact that Inspector of Tax is an authority to exercise power as delegated under Section 44 of the Act by notification. Under Rule 7 of the Rules it has been provided that the Inspector of Taxes is one of the taxing authority.
25. Let us have a look at Rule 8 which is quoted below:-
"8. Subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the Commissioner may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate the powers to be exercised by above classes of officers and shall, by like notification, specify the area in which powers are to be exercised by each of the above classes of officers :
Provided that the Commissioner shall not delegate his powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 to any officer below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Taxes."
That Rule gives the power to the Commissioner to make all delegations save and except the restriction mentioned in the Rule Itself. Rules 8 and 10 must be read harmoniously. Rule 10 basically relates to Chapter-V and VI of the Act. It is with regard to Chapter-V and VI that can be gathered form a bare reading of Rules. Section 16 provides for payment of tax and return. Section 17 is assessment and Section 18 is turnover escaping assessment. Section 19 is time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment and Section 20 is composition of tax payable and Section 22 is interest payable by dealer. Section 22 is penalties. No power has been delegated to the Inspector of taxes for these Sections. The general delegation of power under these Sections is by notification dated 2nd July, 1996 (No. CTS 3/92/14) and the lowest level of officer is Superintendent of Taxes and it is for the restriction imposed in Rule 10. But the power under Section 44 as unamended Rule 10 does riot relate to delegation of powers for these Sections. The power Under Section 44 as stated above is, an independent power and Rule 10 does not create any bar for such delegation. Rather Rule 8 will be operative. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that this amendment was by way clarification in nature and as such this Will Be retrospective and on the date of imposing the penalty by the authority. The authority had the power by virtue of Rule & with the notification quoted above read with amendment.
26. Once the first question is answered against the petitioner the other two points urged by Shri Saikla are absolutely academic in nature. The question of last purchase or sale for Imposition of tax is absolutely irrelevant and inasmuch as it relates only to imposition of penalty and that is basically provided under Section 44(1)(5)(b), i.e. three times of the tax to be computed/assessed and that is what was done in the particular case. Further from the conduct of the petitioner I find that he has not come to this Court with clean hands. He wants to evade tax and in order to achieve that object he has taken resort to this remedy and got a stay order in 1998.
27. Shri Saikia places reliance on the following decision:-
(1) Civil Rule No. 722/95 (L.R. Rice Mill v. State of Assam) Dtd. 4.2.1998. That was a case with regard to the question of last purchase. That question is not relevant for tills case as the present case is one of the imposing penalty Under/Section 44(6)(b) of the Act.
(2) Sales Tax cases. 1993, page 65 (Mahaveer Industry v. Asstt. Commissioner of Taxes). That is a case from Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, what happened In that case was certain goods were found not to be accompanied by requisite challans, and straightaway penalty was imposed. The Court pointed out the provisions of penally will notarise automatically, necessary notice etc. must be issued and it being quasi criminal in nature enquiry as provided in the statute must be held. That was done in the present case.
(3) Sales Tax cases, 1998page537(P.R.Traders v. State of Kerala). in that case the Kerala High Court dealt with the question of last purchase, that is not relevant for our purpose.
(4) The next case is also from the Kerala High Court in STC 1993, Page 199 (In Other Laboratories v. Asstt. Commissioner, Taxes) wherein para 24 it has been pointed out that levying of penalty is not compulsive, but only enabling or permissible, if the action of a person is trandulent, or otherwise blameworthy or objectionable conduct is fulfilling an obligation mentioned in a statute penalty may be imposed. That is what has been found by the authority on this case.
(5) STC 1968 (Vol.XXI) P. 1 (The State of Madras v. T.N. Naidu). There, the Supreme Court dealt with last purchase. .
28. Though the judgment was delivered in open Court on 29.9.1999 it was typed out late and was given to me for correction on 21.11.1999 and after correction, I have signed it on 30.11.1999.
The delay is regretted.
29. The writ application is dismissed, stay order stands vacated.
The record shall be returned.