TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings could be stayed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court merely because an application for compounding of the tax offence was pending before the income-tax authorities.
Analysis: The pending request for compounding did not, by itself, furnish a ground to stall the criminal trial. The issue was governed by the principle that the trial court must proceed with the prosecution and that the High Court should not interdict the criminal process on that basis alone. The decision relied on the settled view that the existence of a pending compounding petition does not justify stay of the complaint or prosecution.
Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A pending application for compounding of an offence before the tax authorities does not, by itself, warrant staying criminal proceedings under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
