Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether criminal complaints for tax offence should be quashed or stayed pending the Settlement Commission's final decision on immunity after it recorded that no concealment has been established and none is likely to be established.
Analysis: The prosecution arose from alleged concealment in respect of raid-seized valuables and was launched under the income-tax offence provision along with the Penal Code charge. The Court distinguished the case from authority where only a pending settlement petition was shown, because here the Settlement Commission had gone further and recorded a finding negativing concealment. In that situation, allowing the criminal trial to proceed to conclusion before the Commission's final determination on immunity could create an anomalous result. At the same time, the Court held that quashing of the complaints was not warranted at that stage.
Conclusion: The complaints were not quashed, but the criminal proceedings were stayed until the Settlement Commission rendered its final decision on immunity.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Settlement Commission has recorded a finding that no concealment has been established and none is likely to be established, criminal proceedings relating to the same alleged concealment should be stayed pending the Commission's final decision on immunity to avoid an anomalous outcome.