TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 1117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the complainant is a competent person as required under Section 14 of the Central Excises Act 1944 (CE Act), as made applicable in respect of Service Tax matters vide Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994. 3. The complaint states that DGCEI is investigating a case of non- payment of Service Tax by Sahara Airlines Limited [SAL.] (now Jetlite India Limited) [JIL.] which was providing taxable services to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (SICCL.) but was not discharging the service tax liability on the amounts received. According to the complainant, the documents obtained from SAL revealed that SAL was rendering taxable services to SICCL for which they received more than Rs. 1400 crores from SICCL during the period 2003-04 to 2006-07 and the service tax liability was estimated more than Rs. 100 crores. 4. According to the complainant, since Saroj K. Datta (Petitioner) is presently the Director and authorized signatory of JIL, "his statement was necessary" and constituted crucial evidence in the case against SAL. The Petitioner was therefore issued summons dated 27th December 2007 for his appearance before the Complainant on 14th January 2008. He was also asked to su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the learned MM on 5th March 2008 contending that the Petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 174 and 175 IPC. The summons was issued by the learned MM by an order dated 7th March 2008 which has been challenged in the present petition before this Court. 6. On the first date of hearing of this case on 2nd May 2008, the following order was passed by this Court: The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint Case No. 16/2008 pending before the court of Shri Praveen Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House New Delhi as well as the impugned order dated 7th March 2008. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the service tax inquiry being conducted by the respondent relates to the period prior to the change in Management of the company and therefore, the petitioner is neither aware of the facts nor has knowledge of the modus operandi of the concerned transactions. Mr. Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had in fact appeared in person before the Respondent on 18th February 2008. Mr. Luthra further states that the Petitioner is even otherwise ready and wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erson duly authorized in terms of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules 1994 which requires a special notification to be issued appointing a Central Excise Officer to exercise the powers conferred under Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994. It is stated that the Respondent failed to furnish along with the Complaint or even before the learned MM a copy of any such notification. 10. It is next submitted that even if the averments in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 174 and 175 IPC. Mr. Luthra points out that notices are in a standard format which do not specify the document to be produced by the noticee. The summons in question require the noticee to attend the office of DGCEI, "to give evidence, to make statement and/or produce the documents and things" mentioned in the schedule "for examination." The schedule to the summons simply states "for tendering evidence." Since no documents were asked to be produced, the question of applicability of Section 175 IPC would not arise. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Meera Kapoor v. State and Anr. 2008 [2] JCC 829.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, we will extend our full cooperation and support to your department in this matter." It is submitted that in the background of the above facts it cannot be said that the Petitioner was deliberately avoiding the summons which was an essential ingredients of Sections 174 & 175 IPC. 13. In reply Mr. Aggarwala learned Senior standing counsel for the Department produced a copy of the notification No. 3/2004-S.T. dated 11th March 2004 as corrected by Corrigendum F. No. 137/14/2003- CX,4 dated 29th March 2004 in terms of which the Superintendent, Central Excise Intelligence has been appointed in terms of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules 1994 read with Section 65(4) of the Finance Act 1994 as Central Excise Officer and invested with all the powers exercisable by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise. It is submitted that the Complainant accordingly was duly authorized in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 to file a complaint. It is pointed out that in another case investigated by the Delhi Zonal Unit of DGCEI the petitioner did not appear in compliance of summons issued to him in that case. The summons was issued to the Petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 and the Service Tax Rules 1994 regarding any taxable service." The Respondent R.L. Thapliyal has signed all summons as "Senior Intelligence Officer/Superintendent, Central Excise. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that R.L. Thapliyal was not competent to authorized to issue summon and consequently filed the complaint. The first issue is, therefore, answered against the Petitioner. 16. The second issue concerns Section 175 IPC which reads as under: Section 175: Omission to produce to document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it : Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or Electronic Record of any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; Or, if the document or Electronic Record is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may ....