The single bench of Delhi High Court has quashed Criminal Charges u/s 132 of Income Tax Act without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction.
The petitioners, Suresh Chand Gupta & and are proprietors and managers of M/s Elgin Electronics respectively. The firm is engaged in the business of importing public address systems, sound systems for auditoriums, etc. without payment of customs duty.
Based on the intelligence report received, the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Act against the firm and CMM has issued summon to the petitioners. The petitioners filed the criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge. The said revision was dismissed by ASJ. Aggrieved by the order writ petition filed before High Court. The counsel for the assessee submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioners made any false declaration or prepared false documents, hence, they are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 132 of the Act.
The counsel further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation, as per the provision of Section 132 of the Act, the punishment imposed for violating Section 132 of the Act could have extended for a period of six months or with a fine or both. The limitation in such a case as provided under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is only 1 year. In the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent in 2013, whereas the incident, in this case, pertains to the year 2009, and, therefore, the complaint was admittedly barred by limitation. It is settled law that if the complaint is time-barred, for which neither any admissible evidence has been filed nor sufficient reason has been shown for such delay, then the proceedings should be quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the Court below has summoned the petitioner without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction. The order, passed in the instant case, is bad in law in five folds: firstly, the prosecution of the petitioner cannot be initiated under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act as the valuation of the goods is less than Rs.1 Crore; secondly, the respondent-department has not examined any witness to prove its case against the petitioner; thirdly, the complaint was admittedly barred by limitation; fourthly; the sanction by the Additional Director for prosecution is invalid and void-ab-initio; and lastly, the Court below while passing the summoning order has not assigned any reason for summoning the petitioner.
The Coram of Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that “I am inclined to hold that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below summoning the petitioners and dismissing the criminal revision are bad in law. The summoning order dated 5th March 2014passed by learned CMM and the order dated 29th July 2016 passed by learned ASJ is set aside. Accordingly, the criminal complaint bearing CC No.75/1/2013 filed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed and stands disposed of”.
Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate, and Mr. Raghuvinder Varma appeared on behalf of the petitioner and respondent respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
