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 the complaint for offences under the Income-tax Act could be quashed on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Settlement Commission and sought payment of tax on the disclosed income.
Analysis: The petitioners relied on their settlement proceedings to contend that prosecution should not have been launched. The Court held that this contention was already covered by the cited precedent, which laid down that mere admission of proceedings before the Settlement Commission does not by itself create a bar to prosecution already instituted. The relevant consideration was whether the Commission had actually become seized of the matter and whether any stay of criminal proceedings had been ordered. On the facts, those conditions were not shown so as to prohibit continuation of the complaint.
Conclusion: The plea for quashing failed, and no interference with the complaint was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the pleaded ground and the prosecution was allowed to continue.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere pendency or admission of settlement proceedings does not bar prosecution for tax offences unless the Settlement Commission has expressly stayed the criminal proceedings or has otherwise become seized of the matter in a manner that legally precludes launch of the complaint.