2003 (11) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioners seek for a direction of this court to the second respondent herein to dispose of the representation to compound the offences against the petitioners on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, as envisaged in section 279(2) - From a very reading of the section 279(2) of the IT Act, it would be clear that the discretionary power was vested upon the Chief Commissioner to compound the same - High Court could not invoke its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue a direction to compound offence - Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues involved: Petition seeking direction to dispose of representation to compound offenses under Income-tax Act, invocation of jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought a direction for the second respondent to dispose of a representation dated October 4, 2002, to compound offenses against them related to a specific case. The matter was related to section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for compounding of offenses by the Chief Commissioner or a Director-General. The court noted that the discretionary power to compound offenses lies with the Chief Commissioner, who must assess the circumstances and decide accordingly.

2. The court considered the nature of the case and opined that it was administrative in character, not warranting the invocation of the court's jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was emphasized that the power to compound offenses rested with the Chief Commissioner, and the court could not issue a direction as requested by the petitioners. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal original petition but directed the second respondent to review the representation and make a decision in accordance with the law promptly.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in the judgment delivered by Justice M. Chockalingam, dismissed the petition seeking a direction to compound offenses under the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted the discretionary power of the Chief Commissioner to compound offenses and refused to invoke its jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation and make a decision promptly, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.