A Delhi court has strongly criticized the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for an “inordinate” 17-year delay in prosecuting a case against Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. and other related entities. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Vaibhav Chaurasia, imposed a ₹50,000 cost to be borne by the responsible DRI officers, in view of the lapses in diligence and prosecution.
The case dates back to 2005 when the DRI alleged that the accused entities evaded customs duties by underreporting the thickness of imported leather to manipulate tax rates. During investigations, the DRI reportedly seized crucial evidence, including physical documents and digital data, from the accused premises. Despite the seizure, the prosecution filed its complaint only in 2023, drawing the court’s ire for delays and procedural inefficiencies.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
Taking note of the 17 years of undue delay, the court remarked that filing and moving the case belatedly before the court was “inexcusable” and indicative of poor prosecution management.
The DRI’s inability to present original documents, despite claims of seizing them in 2005, was deemed negligent. Instead, the agency relied on secondary evidence such as computer screenshots.
The court directed the ₹50,000 cost to be deducted from the salaries of the responsible officers. If the specific officers cannot be identified, the ACMM ruled that the burden would fall on the Principal Additional Director General (ADG) of the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
This is the second application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) filed by the DRI to submit additional evidence. The court criticized the department for failing to utilize opportunities in the first instance.
The Delhi court noted that such delays undermine public trust and burden taxpayers unnecessarily and the DRI has been given one month to comply with the cost order and two months to file a compliance report, ensuring adherence to court directives.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
