|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1298 Records
-
2023 (2) TMI 1298 - PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Rejection of Registration application u/s 12AA and u/s 80G(5)(vi) - application u/s 12AA rejected on the ground that the assesee trust has been formed by the settler for the purpose of carrying out its CSR activities and also rejected application u/s 80G (v) holding that, the application is void ab initio in terms of provisions of Rule 11AA - HELD THAT:- Application for grant of registration was dismissed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal has recorded its satisfaction as the trust fulfills following two basic conditions for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961:-
1. The object of the trust
2. the genuineness of the activities of the trust/institution.
The Commissioner was not to examine with respect to genuineness of the activities of the trust and whether the trust, if transfers fund to another charitable society, can be given exemption under Section 11 of the Act, 1961. This power is restricted only to the Assessing Officer.
Hence, in the present case, no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter back to the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders of registration of the trust under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961. The Tribunal, thus, has rightly directed CIT to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961 and also approval under Section 80 G(5)(vi) of the Act, 1961 to the assessee. Decided against revenue.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1297 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund in cash - refund claim in respect of the CVD and SAD paid for regularization of imports subsequent to introduction of GST regime - Shortfall in the fulfillment of export obligation - absence of specific legal provision under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to grant refund - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the CVD and SAD against which the appellant have filed these refund claims were paid during the months of April and May 2018. On the date of payment of duty there was no scheme of CENVAT Credit in vogue. Neither the amount for which the appellants are seeking the refund claim was in dispute before any authority, tribunal or court of law. The amounts sought as refund was paid by the appellant as directed by the DGFT for the redemption of the Advance Authorizations issued to the appellant. Admittedly appellant failed to fulfill the export obligations as per the advance authorizations issued to them within the stipulated time of eighteen months from the date of advance authorization.
It is well evident that on the date of challan evidencing the payment of duty against which the appellants claim the CENVAT Credit, is after 1st July 2017, the date when the CENVAT Credit Scheme was rescinded. In absence of any scheme of CENVAT Credit Scheme on the date of payment of duty as above the claim to CENVAT Credit cannot be there. Indirectly by claiming that the they are not in position to claim CENVAT Credit, appellant has sought for the refund of the duties paid by them for nor non fulfillment of the obligation under advance authorization issued to them.
Reliance can be placed in the case of DEVENDRA KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. [2013 (7) TMI 1115 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation.'
By the application of the principles as above well known in law and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the argument of the appellant cannot be accepted that the refund claim made by them shall be permissible in terms of Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of 2020 (32) GSTL 726 [2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [2020 (3) TMI 188 - SC ORDER], is distinguishable as the said decisions is in case of non filing or incorrect filing of prescribed statutory form i.e. Tran-1 by the stipulated last date 27.12.2017, to carry forward the credit available in the book of accounts of the of the persons registered under Central Excise Act, 1944 or VAT Act. Hon’ble High Court has directed that such person may be permitted to file or correct the Tran-1 already filed by them on or before 30th November 2019. The issue in the present appeal is not in respect of any such credit which was available in the book of accounts of the appellant on the appointed date i.e. 01.07.2017. Hence the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of present case.
There are no merits in the submissions or the alternate submissions made by the appellant in support of their refund claim - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1296 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of re-assessment - notice issued u/s 148 [i.e., the old regime] - order passed u/s 148A(d) - two consequetive proceedings - HELD THAT:- Both Appellant and respondent say that both proceedings cannot go on, as indicated in our order [2023 (1) TMI 1372 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Accordingly, the impugned notices and order are quashed. In view of the aforesaid, counsel for the parties agree that the order passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the order titled “Closure of duplicate assessment/re-assessment e-Proceedings-Reg” shall dissolve.
As is obvious, the fate of the petitioner will be determined as per the original assessment order dated 28.03.2022.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1295 - SC ORDER
Seeking the rectification of the order - classification of goods - Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) for DWDM Equipment – Photonic Service Switch - Small Factor Pluggable (SFP) - exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 - Revenue submitted that the classification as has been done in the impugned order, has been accepted by the Department-Revenue - HELD THAT:- The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1294 - ITAT MUMBAI
Validity of assessment order u/s 144C (1) without passing the draft assessment order - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Exxon Mobil Company (P.) Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 1556 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in a recent decision reiterated the legal requirement of passing draft assessment order in proceeding u/s 144C of the Act arising out of remand from the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court held that where Tribunal remanded the matter to give effect to transfer pricing issue, assessee’s case would be eligible u/s 144C of the Act and the AO was required to pass draft assessment order before issuance of final assessment order.
Similar view was taken in the case of Turner International India (P.) Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 991 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that failure of AO to adhere to mandatory requirement of section 144C (1) of the Act, where the final assessment order has been passed without draft assessment order, such final assessment order shall be invalid.
AO was required to adjudicate the issue of amount received under International Sales and Marketing Agreement afresh in line with the directions of the Tribunal. It was incumbent upon the AO to follow the procedure laid down u/s 144C of the Act, i.e. to first pass the draft assessment order. In the facts of the case and the decisions referred above, we hold that assessment order passed by AO without passing draft assessment order is invalid and unsustainable, ergo, the same is liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1293 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accrual of income in India - Royalty receipts - subscription received towards Cloud Services - income earned from licensing/sale of software and subscription received against cloud services offered by assessee - scope of Indo-USA DTAA - Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in holding that licensing of computer is copyrighted article and not copyright and accordingly the sale of software is in nature of business income and not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and absence of PE in India, it is not taxable under Article 7 of India-USA DTAA?
- HELD THAT:- Tribunal has ruled that neither income earned from licensing/sale of software products nor subscription fee earned for providing cloud services, could be construed as royalty.
As revenue, says that the proposed questions are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] - We are also informed that a review petition has been filed which is pending consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is closed as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration, albeit, with the caveat that in case the appellant/revenue were to succeed in the review petition, the parties will abide by the decision rendered therein.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1292 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus share capital - unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - burden to prove - assessee submitted that all the relevant details and evidence to explain the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were placed on record and the assessee had fully discharged its initial burden casted u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- We note that Ld. AO without even going through and discussing the details submitted by the subscriber companies, insisted for personal appearance to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. Admittedly, it is a fact on record that director representing four share subscriber companies attended before the ld. AO and furnished the required details. To our mind, Ld. AO could have taken an adverse view only if he could point out the discrepancies or insufficiency in the evidence and details furnished in his office and also as to get further investigation was needed by him by way of recording of statement of the directors of the assessee and the subscriber companies.
We draw our force from the decision of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 1554 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of the subscriber companies, the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case.
From the perusal of the paper book and the documents placed therein, it is vivid that all the share applicants are (i) income tax assessees, (ii) they are filing their income tax returns, (iii) share application form and allotment letter is available on record which were filed in response to notice u/s 133(6), (iv) share application money was made by account payee cheques, (v) details of the bank accounts belonging to share applicants and their bank statements, (vi) all the share applicants are having substantial creditworthiness represented by their capital and reserves.
We find that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions towards sum received during the impugned year. Accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made towards share capital and share premium u/s. 68 - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1291 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery of SARFAESI dues - priority of claim over the claim of Respondent – Custom Authorities - Property under attachment of the Custom Authorities - HELD THAT:- The overriding effect of section 142A as regards the duty, penalty and interest under the Customs Act, 1962 is subject to the Central Act, State Acts provided in this section itself, which includes the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the claim of Respondent–Custom Authorities for the overriding charge under section 142A of the Customs Act, 1962 itself makes an exception in respect of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the Petitioner would have the overriding priority over the charge of Respondent– Custom Authorities.
Petitioner states that the Petitioner bank would proceed to take measures under the SARFAESI Act and if any amount remains balance after satisfying the claim of Petitioner, the Petitioner is under a duty to distribute the balance amount as per the claims received. The statement made by learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions is accepted - the Petitioner is permitted to proceed to take measures under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the property in question. The Petitioner–Bank will, if such a request is received from the Respondent–Custom Authorities to inform them about the action taken by the Petitioner and the quantum of sale proceeds, will give necessary information to the Respondent–Custom Authorities.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1290 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe - HELD THAT:- As the facts and circumstances of the present case are identical to the facts of the case in the case of RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. [2017 (7) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Shri Omvir Singh vs. ITO [2020 (6) TMI 822 - ITAT DELHI] therefore we are inclined to hold that the AO initiating reassessment proceedings mainly on the incorrect and wrong basis that the assessee has not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 and thus the AO did not assume valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and to pass impugned reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 - Assessee appeal allowed.
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee - HELD THAT:- When the assessee is in the business of exchange of old Torn/Soiled/Mutilated currency noted then the modus operandi of business would be the same as stated by the learned counsel of the assessee that is the assessee has to deposit old Torn/Soiled/Mutilated notes to the bank account and he is required to withdraw amounts from the bank account for the purpose of giving the same in exchange to its customer and clients. Therefore we declined to approve basis taken by the AO for making addition of entire cash deposited to the bank accounts of the assessee and ignoring the high amount of cash withdrawn by the assessee for the purpose of its business.
Therefore addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Our above noted conclusion also gets strong support from the judgement of Sona Electric Co. [1984 (2) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Mrs. Deepali Sehgal [2014 (9) TMI 1073 - ITAT DELHI] and Smt. Parminder Kaur Matharoo [2022 (11) TMI 779 - ITAT DELHI] to hold that the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1289 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Benefit of Section 10(38) - Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim - denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers - Whether after making certain statements in the survey the Assessee not claiming exemption u/s 10(38) at the stage of the assessment proceedings, could be the Assessee turned around and make such claim of wanting to cross-examine persons make adverse statements against the Assessee at the stage of the appeal before the ITAT”?
HELD THAT:- Having heard Department (Appellant) and having perused the impugned orders of the AO, CIT(A) and the ITAT, the Court finds that both the grounds viz., the claim for benefit of Section 10(38) and denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers, turned on facts. ITAT was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the failure to adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.
ITAT committed no error in concurring with the view of the CIT(A) and in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT that calls for interference by this Court.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1288 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - Initiation of CIRP - Operational Creditor or not - proceedings before the NCLT are in rem or not - HELD THAT:- In order to restore the appeal before the NCLAT, this Court must be satisfied that the appellant is in a position to meet the threshold requirement which is imposed by the terms of Section 7 for the initiation of the CIRP. Absent that demonstration, the appeal is not allowed at the behest of the appellant and restore the proceedings, the effect of which would be to revive the CIRP against the company. In the event that the appellant seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the NCLT in terms of the provisions of Section 7 of the IBC, the appellant would be at liberty to do so in which case, the observations in the present order will not stand in its way as any adjudication on the merits or maintainability of such an application. The order of the NCLAT dated 13 December 2022 disposing of the appeal filed by the appellant, namely, BPTP SPACIO PARK SERENE FLAT ALLOTTES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (BAWA) VERSUS M/S. BPTP LTD. & ANR. [2022 (12) TMI 1504 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI] shall not come in the way of the appellant in taking recourse to its remedies before the NCLT in fresh proceedings, if so advised.
In the alternative, since the appellant has a consent decree of the NCDRC, it would be at liberty to execute it in accordance with law. The execution proceedings before the NCDRC are expedited and may be taken up for early disposal.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1287 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Calling witness for the purpose of examination - jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was properly exercised or not - HELD THAT:- The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is that there may not be a failure of justice on account of the mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. A bare reading of Section 311 would show that this section vests in the courts the power to summon any person as a witness or to recall and reexamine any witness at any stage of the inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the code if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. It will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court under section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon a witness merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused - The function of the criminal court is to administer justice and not to evaluate the parties on the basis of their performance.
In the present case, the allegations include that of the forgery of a letter of the then Minister and thus are quite serious in nature. It is correct that this witness had not appeared before the Court despite having opportunities been given. There may also be a possibility that there might be some lethargy on the part of the prosecution but it is the duty of the Court to ensure that justice should be done and a criminal trial should conclude with the desired objective of the quest for justice. Suppose this witness is not examined, the Court or this case shall always be deprived of some material facts which could have been produced.
Taking into account the timeline, which shall expire in the middle of April, the CBI is directed to examine PW C. Edmonds Allen through video conferencing on the date set up by the learned Trial Court.CBI shall not be given more than two opportunities for examining this witness. If the witness fails to appear on these two dates or CBI fails to examine (except for some technical reason), the right to his examination shall automatically stand closed. The learned Trial Court shall also give an opportunity to the defence for the statement of the accused and the defence witnesses, if any, on a day-to-day basis. The Learned Trial Court may fix a schedule accordingly to ensure that the trial is completed within the time frame given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The present petition along with the pending applications are allowed and disposed of.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1286 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking adjudication order - though the said order has recorded the submissions made by the appellant in great detail, but no findings were recorded therein countering the submissions made in the reply to the show cause notice as well as during the course of adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT:- It is found that the submissions made by the appellant during the course of adjudication proceedings were recorded therein from pages 19 to 29, but the findings in the impugned order are only confined to few pages, wherein the submissions made by the appellant had not been captured fully for an effective order as contemplated under the statute. Thus, the principle of natural justice have been violated in this case, for which the matter should go back to the original authority for a proper fact finding on the issues involved in this appeal.
The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority for deciding the issues involved in this case.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Validity of assessment order - HELD THAT:- The High Court ought to have addressed the jurisdictional question and the appellant ought not to have been non-suited on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. The point urged before the High Court goes to the root of the controversy, which gives rise to the present proceeding. In the event the High Court found that the officer who passed the assessment order had the authority to do so, on such finding the writ petition could be dismissed as there being alternative remedy under the statute.
Matter remanded to High Court for adjudication on the question of the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to pass the assessment order, which was challenged before the High Court - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1284 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - non-submission of GST returns for six consecutive months - HELD THAT:- An identical controversy has been decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S SHIRDI PACKAGING VERSUS COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONERATE DEHRADUN, STATE TAX OFFICER RUDRAPUR [2023 (1) TMI 1365 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT], where it was held that we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the State Tax Officer, Rudrapur, Sector-2, Uttarakhand ventilating his grievances and if the petitioner pays dues under the GST Act pending against him, then his application for restoration of GST registration may be considered liberally.
In view of consensus between the parties that matter is covered by the order passed in above order, present writ petition is also decided in terms of the said order. Petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revocation of cancellation order, under Section 30 of Central GST Act, within two weeks.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1283 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking transfer of present winding-up proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi [NLCT] - HELD THAT:- It would be pertinent to note that in Action Ispat [2020 (12) TMI 535 - SUPREME COURT], the petition was transferred to NCLT because at the time when such an application was made, not much time had lapsed since appointment of the OL therein and moreover, steps for seizure of company’s factory premises had not been initiated. It is for this reason that the Court had opined that no effective or irreversible steps had been taken by the OL.
In the present case, as noted above, the sale of Company’s assets was effected, but the possession could not be transferred to the Auction Purchaser due to acquisition proceedings. Further, as it manifests, possession of the Company’s entire plant and machinery presently vests with Pegasus, and its land has been acquired by the Government of Haryana. In the afore-noted backdrop of the case, with no assets available for satisfying dues of the sole creditor – Pegasus, the Court is of the opinion that winding-up proceedings have progressed to an irreversible stage, and it would not be beneficial to transfer the same to NCLT. Mr. Rohatgi also argued that there is a possibility that the land may be de-notified. The Court however cannot decide the application on presumptions which have no basis.
Therefore, without delving into the question as to whether the Applicant, as a shareholder of the Company, has the locus to file present application or not, the Court is of the opinion that in the instant case for the facts recounted above, there is no good reason to transfer present winding up proceedings before NCLT.
Application is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1282 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking release of Frames and Slides imported - import permission granted by the competent authority in the office of Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) - HELD THAT:- The matter requires a detailed hearing. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has stated before this Court that most of the supplies are to be made to Organizations under the Government of India i.e. Defence, Para Military Forces and Sports Ministry. It is stated that the Petitioner has already paid more than a sum of Rs. 1 crore as demurrage charges on the consignment and other related consignments which are the subject matter of the present LPA. It has also been stated that the consignment has been opened by the Delhi Police for inspection because of which rusting of small parts is taking place.
As an interim measure, the entire consignment which is subject matter of LPA 695/2022, be handed over to the Writ Petitioner on Supratnama, and the Writ Petitioner is directed not to dispose of even a single item therein without the directions of this Court.
List the present LPAs on 10.05.2023.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1281 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Non-consideration of reassessment - Escalation Charges would be exigible under the VAT Act or not - HELD THAT:- When it remains undisputed that the seventh respondent could not have decided on reassessment without considering the petitioner’s case that the amount received as Escalation Charges would not be exigible under the VAT Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition must succeed to this limited extent with the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 being quashed and the proceedings restored to the seventh respondent for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file detailed objections but without raising question of limitation as the impugned order is within time. This Court must observe that all questions are left open for consideration by the seventh respondent.
The petition for the different relief/s other than the relief as against the challenge to the reassessment order is dismissed - petition is allowed in part.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1280 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - bogus LTCG on share transactions - exemption of income u/s 10(38) denied - reason for selection for scrutiny was “suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt long term capital gains shown in return (Penny Stock tab in ITS) - HELD THAT:- The burden was on the department to nail the assessee through proper evidence, that there was some cash transaction with the suspected brokers, on whom there was an investigation being conducted by the department. See Shyam R Pawar [2014 (12) TMI 977 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Just because few operators have done some nefarious activities, the assessee cannot be blamed and cannot be denied the gain LTCG merely on the basis of suspicion.
As relevant evidence were produced to suggest that the transactions (purchase and sale of shares) were undertaken and thereafter the same was reflected in the Demat Account; and the transactions have taken place through banking channel and through registered broker of Stock Exchange; and there is no evidence to disprove these relevant documents which support the claim of assessee (LTCG). Therefore, the claim of LTCG on the scrip under question cannot be disallowed based on general enquiry conducted by department unless the involvement of assessee is shown in the illegal activities, without which, the impugned action to disallow the claim of assessee cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1279 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Grant of bail - Money Laundering - opening of 446 numbers of bank accounts of various persons in connivance with the brothers of Babulal Agrawal and later on, the entire amount was transferred to M/s Prime Ispat Limited through 13 shell companies - allegations against the present applicants are that they helped the main accused persons and they were involved in the commission of the crime in question - HELD THAT:- From bare reading of the Section 45 of the Act of 2002, it appears that the court has to record finding with regard to grant of an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court has to record its satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, before passing an order of release of an accused. In the matter of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal same offence arising out of same complainant case was registered, but no plea was taken by Enforcement Directorate before this High Court and they have been granted protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Another [2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER], held that considering the fact that during the investigation, the Investigating Agency never arrested the petitioner(s) and that the petitioner(s) had co-operated during the investigation and that now the Charge-sheet is already filed and the custodial investigation is not required, we deem it appropriate to make order dated 23.03.2022 as absolute. It is directed that in case of arrest of petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the learned Trial Court.
Considering the fact that the similar relief has been granted to the similarly situated accused persons by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this bail application is allowed in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is directed that in case of arrest of the present applicants, they shall be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the trial Court - application allowed.
........
|
