TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the amount received from clients with regard to various services, erection and commissioning provided. Said complaint was numbered as Central Excise Case No.F.No.IV/6- Prev/16/Gr.G/2014 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. In pursuance of said complaint, the applicant was arrested. The applicant thereafter preferred application for bail before the learned Magistrate. As the said application was rejected, he approached for bail before the learned Sessions Court at Vadodara by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.338 of 2014. However, said application was allowed vide order dated 28/2/2014 with certain conditions namely, 2(b) that the applicant shall deposit 30% of the total outstanding amount within a period of two months from his release on bail, 2(c) the applicant shall thereafter deposit 10% of the outstanding amount every month till the total amount is paid to the authority and 2(h) the applicant shall not leave State of Gujarat without prior permission of the trial court. As the applicant could not comply with the conditions of paying the amount, he preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.641 of 2014 for modification of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C.L., he could not clear the outstanding amount. He further submitted that even though the applicant was permitted to go out of Gujarat for recovery purpose by modifying the condition, as the time to deposit the amount was not extended, the interim relief extended to the applicant became redundant. He further submitted that on the one hand, no order was passed on the application for modification filed by the applicant and on the other hand, bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by the impugned order and therefore, the applicant could not pay the outstanding amount. He further submitted that the applicant has given an advertisement in the newspapers to sell off his house and he will pay off all the outstanding amount upon sale of the said house and therefore, he prayed to set aside the order dated 11/9/2014 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.875 of 2014. 6. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, submitted that the applicant was arrested for the offence under section 89(1) (d)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994 as he failed to discharge the burden of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1.80 crores during the periods 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, vide order dated 16/10/2014. He further submitted that as the applicant did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 57,22,912/-, he was issued with a show cause notice as to why penal action should not be taken against him, but he did not reply to the said notice. He pointed out that the applicant had floated another company in the name of M/s DHJ Engineering Technology Pvt. Ltd. in which 99% share holding is of the applicant and 1% is of his wife. He further submitted that the department has recently noticed that the applicant had provided taxable services to the tune of Rs. 2.45 crores during the periods 2012-13 to 2013-14 and although the applicant was liable to pay service tax to the tune of Rs. 30,61,489/-, he had paid only Rs. 2,33,446/- towards the same and the summons issued to the applicant to remain present on 1/5/2014, 12/5/2014 and 27/5/2014 at the department were returned with the endorsement as not delivered and therefore, notice was effected by affixing at the last known address by drawing panchnama on 17/4/2015. He further submitted that in view of the conduct of the applicant in evading payment of service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.338 of 2014 filed by the applicant herein under section 439 of the Code, the conditions were imposed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, vide order dated 28.2.2014. As submitted by learned advocate for the applicant, offence under section 89(1)(d)(ii) of the Act inserted has been cognizable and punishment has been enhanced from 3 years to 7 years on and from 10.5.2013. Thus, when the above referred order dated 28.2.2014 was passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.338 of 2014 by the court and when the order dated 11.9.2014 was passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.875 of 2014, above legal position was very much there and not a whisper about the same has been made by learned advocate for the applicant herein and now when the respondent No.2 had preferred application under section 439(2) of the Code, in which the trial court had decided the issue related to cancellation of bail, as breach of conditions was alleged to have been committed by the applicant, then in present revision, he cannot raise said new grounds for the first time and it is well settled legal position that ignorance of law that too by an advocate is not a good ground. 8.1 The learned advocate for the ....