Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner M/s Nav Bharat Dal Mills has challenged in this petition the impugned notice dated 25.7.95 (Annex.2) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Churu. This petition was filed in 1995 and on 14.8.95, Honble Shri V.G. Palshikar J. ordered to issue notice in this petition and also issued notice on stay petition on the same day. While issuing the notice, it was ordered that no coercive steps should be taken in the matter by the department. From 1995 till today i.e. 1st December, 1998, for more than three years, this petition was adjourned from time to time by the different Judges of this Court. On 11.11.98, on the request being made by Mr. Harish Purohit for Mr. Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, it was ordered to be placed on 13.11.98 at the top of the cause list. On that day i.e. 13.11.98, learned counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never served with the notice dated 8.8.94 issued by the respondent department under Sec. 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act. This submission was made on the instructions received from the petitioner. Thereupon, the learned counsel Mr. Bhandawat appearing for the respondent department was called upon to expl- ain the same. Mr. Bhandawat submitted that not only the notice dt. 8.8.94 was duly served upon the petitioner but the said notice was replied by the petitioner through his counsel on 17.7.95. However, at that time, he had no material to support the same, therefore, he was directed to produce the original record of the case before this court on 1.12.98 i.e. today. Mr. Bhandawat was further directed to state as to whether the recovery of the amount of Rs. 40,000/- is made from the respondent No.3 - M/s Radheyshyam Gopal Prasad or not. (2). Today, Mr. Bhandawat submitted that he could not gather the information as to whether the recovery is already made from the respondent No.3 or not by the department. However, he has produced the original record before the Court for its perusal. From the record, it is clear that the notice dt. 8.8.94 was duly served upon the petitioner because there was already a reply filed by the advocate for the petitioner on 17.7.95. However, he has produced the original record before the Court for its perusal. From the record, it is clear that the notice dt. 8.8.94 was duly served upon the petitioner because there was already a reply filed by the advocate for the petitioner on 17.7.95. When there is a reply of an advocate, there is no question of placing any proof about the receipt of the said notice. On merits, an attempt was made by the learned counsel Mr. Bhandawat on the basis of the documents to prove the case of the department. (3). As against that, learned counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner tried to submit on merits of the case. It is not necessary for me to deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on merits because I am of the opinion that this petition is straightway required to be dismissed on the false submission made before this Court on earlier occasion on 13.11.98 by the learned counsel Mr. Kothari on the instructions received from the petitioner that he was never served with any notice dated 8.8.94, which was issued under Sec.226 (3) of the Income Tax Act. The record clearly shows that not only the said notice was served upon the petitioner but the advocate for the petitioner had also submitted his reply to the said notice on 17.7.95. Law is very clear on this point, that those persons, who do not come before the Court with clean hands, are not entitled to get any relief, even if they have got a good case on merits in their favour. (4). Under the circumstances without going into the merits of the case and without dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case, this petition is dismissed with cost. (5). Before parting, I must state that this Court has noticed that this tendency of giving false instructions by the parties to their counsel, which is required to be viewed seriously, therefore, the petitioner is also saddled with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which, it will deposit before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from today. On being deposited, the said amount will be utilised by the office of this Court for legal aid purpose.