18.We have found from a reading of the above paragraph that the petitioner is attributed a clear admission of the guilt. Once there is an admission of guilt, according to the Revenue, then, it is enough justification for their act is the submission of Mr.Jetly. Far from reading any admission of guilt, what we do in order to completely reject the submissions of Mr. Jetly is a reading of the documents annexed to the petition as also the above reproduced paragraph in the affidavit-in-reply as a whole. We cannot pick and choose certain sentences or portions thereof. We are not denying to the Revenue an opportunity of investigating or unearthing huge fraud. We are also not denying them their powers, but surely if drastic powers have to be exercised by public bodies, they must be exercised reasonably and fairly. We fail to understand if a huge and systematic fraud is alleged and perpetrated not only on the Revenue but on the public as a whole resulting in a voluntary deposit from the petitioner, then, why the investigations could not be concluded nor a show cause notice issued nor any steps taken till date. When such petitions are filed, it is our experience that detailed affidavits are filed in order to justify the act, but there is not a word about the delay. On 21st April, 2016, the deponent has time to file a very detailed affidavit-in-reply and file it in Court, but it is surprising that the Directorate and whole of it does not have time to proceed against those indulging in fraud on the public. A justification of this nature comes promptly only when
