ORDER 1. On 4-3-20081, the following order was passed in the above Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9228 of 2005: (SCC pp. 525-26, paras 1-7) "1. In matters concerning Revenue we have come across writ petitions being filed in the High Courts challenging the validity of notifications without disclosing pendency of assessment proceedings/appeals therefrom, this is one such case. 2. In the lead matter the assessment order was passed on 31-3-2004. assessment year is 2002-2003. On 14-7-2004 Mis Shanti Fragrances (the assessee) moved the Delhi High Court vide CWP No. 11251 of 2004 challenging the validity of the Notification dated 31-3-2000 issued under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. In the writ petition it has been solemnly stated that the assessee has not adopted any other proceedings, though on the date of the filing of the writ petition the assessee had preferred statutory appeal against the order of assessment which was pending since 19-5-2004. It needs to be reiterated that the writ petition was filed on 14-7-2004. Therefore the petitioner assessee had failed to disclose to the High Court that it had .filed an appeal during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. The deponent is the Director of M/s Shanti Fragrances. From the original record we find that his name is Krishna Chourasia, s/o of Shri P.C. Chourasia residing at A-198, Gujranwala Town, Part I, Delhi. He has declared the affidavit as the Director of the Company. 4. We are taking serious view of this matter particularly when huge stakes are involved and it was incumbent on the assessee to disclose to the High Court that an appeal was pending before the first appellate authority. In this case the contents of gutka/paan masala is in issue. 5. The record further indicates that the writ petition was filed on 14-7-2004. It further indicates that the High Court had issued notice on 19-7 -2004. Without counter the matter proceeded and the judgment came to be delivered on 5-11-2004. The position is clear that the matter was taken up by the High Court as the High Court appears to have been told that in the writ petition the question involved was only regarding the validity of the Notification dated 31-3-2000. It appears that the High Court has not been informed about the pending assessment proceedings/appeals therefrom. 6. The position is clear that the matter was taken up by the High Court as the High Court appears to have been told that in the writ petition the question involved was only regarding the validity of the Notification dated 31-3-2000. It appears that the High Court has not been informed about the pending assessment proceedings/appeals therefrom. 6. In the circumstances the following order is passed: The Registry is directed to issue show-cause notice to ShJi Krishna Chourasia, s/o Shri P.C. Chourasia, residing at A-198, Gujranwala Town, Part I, Delhi, as to why proceedings for contempt should not be taken against him in view of the aforestated circumstances. It is important to note that in the supporting affidavit the contemnor has specifically stated that the contents of the accompanying civil writ petition are true and correct and no material has been concealed therefrom. We also direct the Registry to forward a copy of this order to the High Court so that in future whenever such writ petitions come before the High Court the Judges should enquire whether any assessment proceedings or appeals therefrom are pending before proceeding further in the matter. 7. Notice returnable on 22-4-2008. Mr Krishna Chourasia is directed to be present personally in Court on that date. Dasti service is also permitted" . 2. Today when the above special leave petition came before this Court for further action to be taken, Mr Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the deponent, Director of Mis Shanti Fragrances, stated' that the deponent contemnor acted without any intent to mislead the High Court. However, the learned counsel fairly stated that in such cases courts are right in taking appropriate action for not complying with requirements of disclosing relevant facts in the writ petitions. The learned counsel fairly stated that as a matter of first chance Shri Krishna Chaurasia may be penalised with a fine, particularly, when he assures the Court that in future , such misstatements in the writ petition as mentioned in the order of this Court dated 4-3-20081 would not be made by him in court proceedings. 3. Mr Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel further states that Shri Chaurasia tenders unconditional apology to this Court which is hereby accepted on the condition that he will deposit Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with the Registry within four weeks from today, as fine. 3. Mr Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel further states that Shri Chaurasia tenders unconditional apology to this Court which is hereby accepted on the condition that he will deposit Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with the Registry within four weeks from today, as fine. It may further be stated that Shri Chaurasia is present in Court pursuant to our earlier order dated 4-320081. The said amount will be paid over by the Registry to the National Association for the Blind, Mumbai. 4. Before concluding we may mention that in matters after matters, particularly, involving Revenue we find suppression of the relevant fact before the High Court as well as before this Court as to whether the assessee has invoked statutory remedy. Apart from suppression of facts, even misleading statements are sometimes made in that regard. We wish to clarify that in every matter, be it the assessee or the Department, it would be necessary to state specifically in the writ petition/special leave petition whether proceedings are pending before the departmental authorities. Similarly, if the assessee invokes statutory remedy pending the writ petition even then the assesseel Department shall say so by way of a counter-affidavit or additional affidavit pending such writ petition. The object underlying this direction is that the High Court should be told as to whether the assessee has exhausted the statutory remedy under the respective tax laws as nondisclosure of such relevant facts may warrant the dismissal of the writ petition before the High Court. 5. Accordingly, the above order dated 4-3-20081 stands complied with. On merits, the special leave petition to come for hearing on 15-7-2008.