Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore, the character of the prosecution case had not been changed. The complainant had knocked the doors of the judicial forum for their remedy. Hence, their case has to be decided on the merits and justice should be rendered to the parties concerned. Therefore, a complete trial is absolutely necessary – Therefore, restored on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, for disposal on the merits - - - - - Dated:- 16-7-2012 - KARNAN C. S., J. JUDGEMENT C. S. Karnan J.- The revision petitioner/complainant/Income-tax Officer, TDS ward, Coimbatore, had filed a case in C. C. No. 62 of 2000, respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, against three respondents herein/accused for the offence under s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax Act which has been paid by the accused on June 30, 1989. The dividends paid are covered by the issue of certificate showing the date of payment as September 25, 1987. The complainant had sent a show-cause notice dated January 9, 1990, requiring them to show as to why they should not be prosecuted for the delay in making the payments into the exchequer and for the same, the accused had sent replies dated January 10, 1990, and March 8, 1999. The complainant had also served a notice under section 2(35)(b) of the Income-tax Act, on February 28, 1990, against the second and third accused, being the managing director and the administrative manager of the first accused ; fixing them as principal officers connected with the management and adm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Income-tax Commissioner had granted permission on February 9, 2000, to proceed with the case. The permission order was marked as exhibit P-1. The PW 1 (complainant) had further stated that, the shareholders of the first accused company, while giving dividend had deducted income-tax. The same was remitted to the Income-tax Department after delay. The matter was posted for further evidence of PW 1 and also for marking of documentary evidence. Hence, the matter has been adjourned for about 23 hearings. The complainant had filed 131 cases. In spite of this, the complainant had not taken any steps to produce the witnesses or mark the documents. Under the circumstances, the complainant had filed a memo stating that 22 documents had been filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts could not be produced before the trial court. The learned Magistrate, without completing the evidence, dismissed the main case. The documents are not created ones but are genuine. The learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution case, several issues have arisen and all the issues have to be decided after recording evidence. In the instant case, there is pecuniary loss to the Government. Therefore, proper adjudication is absolutely necessary in this case. The learned counsel submits that now, the complainant had collected all the documents from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, and is ready to mark the said documents before the trial court in order to prove the prosecution case. The learned counsel f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the same could be solved before the trial court. On considering the prosecution case and on submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the trial court, this court is of the considered view that : (1) The complainant had listed 22 documents along with the complaint. Those documents were on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Therefore, the complainant could not produce the same before the trial court within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay had not been caused by the complainant since the documents were in judicial custody in some other case. Besides this, the documents are not created ones. Therefore, the character of the prosecution case had not been changed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates