TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, best known to him, amounts to grave harassment to the innocent tax payers - Filing of this petition, amounts to gross abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as, after cancellation of demand raised by him from the respondent, this petition was not maintainable. This petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be recovered from the erring officer from his own pocket. - CRM-M-4300-2018 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2018 - Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate ORDER RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g concurrent powers akin to this Court. The lower Revisional Court, has failed to appreciate that due to difference of opinion of empanelled Advocates, as to before which of the forum revision has to be filed, delay of 110 days occurred. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7, strongly refuting the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plea taken by the petitioner is totally misconceived. Rather, the petitioner has tried his level best to mis-guide this Court as well as the lower Revisional Court, by pleading wrong facts and thus, is liable for criminal action. There is no opinion on the file before this Court or before the lower revisional Court as to which of the Advocate ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put forth by the petitioner seems to be completely false and concocted one just to hide his negligence of not filing revision within the period of limitation. The empanelled advocate of the petitioner on 15.07.2014, itself directed the petitioner to file revision before the concerned Sessions Court, but he filed the same on 04.09.2014 and that too after procuring letter dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) which is a repetition by the same Advocate, who has given his opinion on 15.07.2014, just to make out a case to justify the delay in filing revision beyond the period of limitation. All above acts of the petitioner being not bona fide are liable to be condemned. He is warned to be careful in future with advice not to harass genuine tax paye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
