V K BHARGAVA V. ASSISTANT INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER AND ORS

CRLMP/1981/2018

AI Insights

The case involves three criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by V.K. Bhargava against the Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Jaipur, M/s Punsumi India Limited through its official liquidator, and H.C. Chopra. The core issue was whether V.K. Bhargava, after the winding up of M/s Punsumi India Limited and the appointment of an official liquidator, could still represent the company in legal proceedings. The court examined the timing of the alleged offences in relation to the winding up of the company and the takeover by the official liquidator. The court concluded that since the offences were committed before the winding up proceedings were initiated, and the official liquidator had not yet taken over, the petitioner remained liable for the company's actions up to that point.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750875 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH THAKURIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: M M RANJAN; ROHAN AGARWAL
• Keywords: Criminal miscellaneous petition; Income Tax; Official liquidator; Winding up

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1981/2018 V K Bhargava s/o Shri G.G. Bhargava b/c Bhargava r/o D-16, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur. 2. M/s. Punsumi India Limited through official liquidator, Corporate Bhawan, G-6/7, Residency Area, Near 22 Godown Fly over, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 3. H.C. Chopra s/o late Sh. K.C. Chopra, r/o A-249, Raghav Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, at present r/o C 119A, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015. ----Respondent with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1982/2018 V K Bhargava s/o Shri G.G. Bhargava b/c Bhargava r/o D-16, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur. 2. M/s. Punsumi India Limited through official liquidator, Corporate Bhawan, G-6/7, Residency Area, Near 22 Godown Fly over, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 3. H.C. Chopra s/o late Sh. K.C. Chopra, r/o A-249, Raghav Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, at present r/o C 119A, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015. ----Respondent with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1983/2018 V K Bhargava s/o Shri G.G. Bhargava b/c Bhargava r/o D-16, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Income Tax Commissioner, Circle-3, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1981/2018] 2. M/s. Punsumi India Limited through official liquidator, Corporate Bhawan, G-6/7, Residency Area, Near 22 Godown Fly over, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 3. H.C. Chopra s/o late Sh. K.C. Chopra, r/o A-249, Raghav Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, at present r/o C 119A, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan Sr. Counsel with Mr. Rohan Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA -/Order/- 06/09/2018 By this common order, SBCRLMP Nos. 1981/2018, 1982/2018 and 1983/2018 between the same parties shall be decided together. 2. In the present case, complaint was filed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-III, Jaipur against M/s Punsumi India Limited through its Managing Director V.K. Bhargava the petitioner, Shri H.C. Chopra Vice Chairman and Whole Time Director. 3. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised only one argument before this Court to contend that after the company has gone into winding up, and official liquidator has taken charge of the company, the petitioner cannot represent company and official liquidator is a necessary party. 4. Admittedly, the offence was committed before the winding up proceedings were initiated against the company and at that time official liquidator had not taken over. Liability, if any, (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1981/2018] cannot operate with retrospective effect. The petitioners are responsible for omissions or commission on behalf of company when the company had not gone into the winding up. 5. Revisional court below has dealt with the arguments raised by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court. No contrary judgment has been cited. Hence, no interference is warranted by the third court and all the three petitions are dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/- "