TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecution), Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, has filed a complaint against the petitioner and accused No. 1 alleging that there was non-compliance by accused No. 1 regarding payment of service tax and that accused No. 1 misclassified some of the services provided by them and that in view of the non-compliance, a detailed investigation was taken up by the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate for further period 2012-13 to 2015-16. It is alleged that to ascertain the reasons for non-payment of service tax, summons dated 23.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 were issued to accused No. 2, who was the then Chairman and Managing Director of accused No. 1 and that in pursuance of the summons, Mr. G. Vinod Reddy, the authorized person had appeared and submitted requisite details. The total service tax not/short paid by the accused during 201112 to 2015-16 works out to Rs. 34,28,85,410/-; and therefore, there was contravention of the provisions of Sections 67, 68(1), 66B, 68(2), 66A and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Rules of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Based on the said allegations, a show cause notice dated 21.12.2016 was issued to accused No. 1 vide O.R.No. 153/2016-Adjn(Commr) ST dated 21.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order in original dated 31.03.2017; that the total service tax not/short paid by the accused during 2011-12 to 2015-16 worked out to Rs. 34,28,85,410/-; that accused No. 2 being the Chairman and Managing Director of accused No. 1 - company is responsible for the day to day activities and affairs of the accused No. 1- company and he was fully aware of the service tax liability and therefore, he is liable for punishment for the aforesaid offences. In the said counter, parawise reply was also given. 4. Sri S. Ravi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri R.S. Associates, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 2, contended that the show cause notice dated 21.12.2016 was issued to accused No. 1 only asking it to show cause as to why tax and consequent penalties should not be levied against it, but, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-accused No. 2 prior to launching the prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the present complaint has been filed alleging offences punishable under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 9, 9(1)(b)(bb)(bbb)(bbbb), 9(c) and 9AA of the 1944 Act, as made applicable to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-II, in I.A.No. 215 of 2023 in CP (IB) No. 132/7/HDB/2019. By virtue of the company as a going concern under Regulation 32A of Liquidation Process Regulations, all the liabilities, dues of the company stand extinguished after distribution as per the mechanism provided under Section 53 of the Code, 2016, and therefore, in the absence of any service tax liability against the company, no prosecution can continue against the then Director of the company. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per Section 32 of the Code, 2016, after the corporate insolvency resolution process, liability for any offenses committed prior to the insolvency process shall cease, and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 124 of 2018 against the petitioner-accused No. 2. 7. In support of the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagdish Lal Behl (1980)15 CTR( P&H) 281, Kerala High Court in S.M. Badsha v. Income Tax Officer (1987) 65 CTR (Ker) 266 and S.N. Vadhyar and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), or an "officer who is in default", as defined in clause (60) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or was in any manner in charge of, or responsible to the corporate debtor for the conduct of its business or associated with the corporate debtor in any manner and who was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence" shall be proceeded and the law will take it's own course. Only the corporate debtor (with new management) as held in Para 42 of P. Mohanraj will be safeguarded. c. If the old management takes over the corporate debtor (for MSME Section 29A does not apply (see 240A), hence for MSME old management can takeover) the corporate debtor itself is also not safeguarded from prosecution under Section 138 or any other offences. 68. Thus, I am of the view that by operation of the provisions of the IBC, the criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons under Section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act read with Section 200 of the CrPC would not stand terminated. ... 70. It is true that by virtue of Section 238 of the IBC, the provisions of the CrPC shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e basis of the returns submitted by the second accused. As regards the complicity of the third accused, there is no direct evidence. There is no evidence to show that the third accused was carrying on the business of the partnership firm. The third accused could be roped in only on the basis of Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This Section came into force on October 1, 1975. Exhibit P-3 report was submitted long prior to the introduction of Section 278B in the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence entered against the third accused are not sustainable. 12. In Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited's case, while answering the questions that arose for consideration i.e., (i) As to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'I&B Code')?; (ii) As to whether the amendment to Section 31 by Section 7 of Act 26 of 2019 is clarificatory/declaratory or substantive in nature? and (iii) As to whether after approval of r....