M/S SINGHANIA OIL MILLS ORS V. U O I INCOME TAX DEP ANR

SAW/673/2012

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Singhania Oil Mills & Ors. appealing against the Union of India & Anr. concerning the refusal to stay criminal proceedings by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur. The appellants argued that since their case was pending before the Settlement Commission, the criminal proceedings should be stayed. However, the court noted that no final order or immunity from prosecution had been granted by the Settlement Commission, as required under Section 245H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court dismissed the appeal, citing that the mere pendency of proceedings does not warrant a stay on criminal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764135 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bhupen Champaklal Dalal Vs. Sandeep Kapoor, Uttam Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK
• Keywords: Criminal Proceedings; Economic offence; Immunity from prosecution; Intra-Court Appeal; Settlement commission
• Section: 245H

Judgement Text

" (1) DB SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT 673/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT NO.673/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5072/2012 M/s SINGHANIA OIL MILLS & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. DATE: 29.05.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Gunjan Pathak, for the appellants. **** Heard on the question of admission of intra Court appeal. Order dated 16.04.2012 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5072/2012 has been impugned in the intra Court appeal. Prayer was made before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Case No.969A/2006 to stay the criminal proceedings of a petition pending with effect from 2006, which was refused. It was submitted that proceedings are pending before the Settlement Commission, as such there should be stay of criminal proceedings. It was further submitted that with respect to penalty proceedings also, the matter is pending, therefore, criminal proceedings be stayed. No final order has been passed by the Settlement Commission. Final order is required to be passed by the (2) DB SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT 673/2012 Settlement Commission. So far, there is no immunity granted by the Settlement Commission, as envisaged under Section 245H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 245H provides that it is for the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. No such final order has been passed. Earlier order passed by the Settlement Commission has been set aside by this Court. Reliance was placed by the Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhupen Champaklal Dalal Vs. Sandeep Kapoor, [2001] 248 ITR 0827, in which the Bombay High Court has laid down that judicial notice can be taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate with respect to pendency of appeal. Reassessment orders were questioned before the Appellate Tribunal, hence, proceedings were stayed. Facts of present case are different. Reliance was also placed by the Counsel on the decision of the Apex Court in Uttam Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, [1982] 133 ITR 0909. The decision of the Apex Court is entirely distinguishable as the Apex Court has quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that it was not the case of filing false returns. It was not the case of interim stay. Thus, reliance placed by the Counsel on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is of no avail to the appellants. In our opinion, due to pendency of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, no immunity is available, only Settlement Commission can grant immunity from prosecution. Criminal proceedings need not be stayed merely (3) DB SPECIAL APPEAL WRIT 673/2012 due to pendency of proceedings, order is discretionary. No ground is made out for making interference. Consequently, we do not find any ground so as to interfere in the orders passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur as well as the Single Bench. The intra Court appeal is hereby dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. /KKC/ Certificate: All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMAR P.A. "