TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds order on charges under Section 482 Cr.PC, stresses procedural limits</h1> The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the order framing charges under Section 482 Cr. PC, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural ... Prosecution proceedings u/s 276C(1) and 277 - pre-charge evidence - willful attempt to evade tax - false statement in verification having been made in the returns and false statement of accounts delivered. HC dismissed the petition by holding that, there are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. Issues:1. Delay in prosecution under Sections 276 C (1) and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Challenge to the order framing charge under Section 482 Cr. PC after revisional court dismissal.3. Recourse to Section 482 Cr. PC as a substitute for a second revisional challenge.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with a prosecution initiated in 1993 under Sections 276 C (1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to willful tax evasion and false statements in returns for the assessment year 1989-1990. The case faced delays, with the trial court finding a case for trial in 2015. The petitioners challenged this order through revision petitions, which were dismissed by the revisoinal court in 2015.2. Subsequently, the petitioners sought recourse to the High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC to challenge the order framing charges. The High Court considered whether allowing this petition would amount to a second revisional challenge, which is barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. The court cited previous decisions and declined to interfere, noting the lack of special circumstances warranting a different outcome.3. The High Court emphasized that in the absence of special circumstances, the revisional court's decision should not be disturbed. Referring to past rulings, the court highlighted the need for a special case to merit interference under Section 482 Cr. PC. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition and related applications, upholding the revisional court's decision and emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural limitations in seeking extraordinary relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
