Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (2) TMI 530 - HC - Service Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Competency of Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor to represent the applicant.
2. Jurisdiction of criminal courts to try the offence under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Grant of conditional/temporary bail to the applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor to Represent the Applicant:
Initially, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General/Public Prosecutor, represented the applicant. However, his competency was objected to by the Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs. The objection was based on the premise that the offence was cognizable and against the State, thus the State had entrusted the administration of criminal justice to the Office of the Advocate General. Consequently, Mr. Bhaduri could not represent the accused against the State. This position was supported by precedents such as Lt. Col. K.C. Sud, New Delhi v. S.C. Gudimani, New Delhi 1981 Cri LJ 1779, which held that Public Prosecutors cannot appear against the State in criminal matters. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate, subsequently represented the applicant, confirming that Mr. Bhaduri was not competent to represent the applicant against the State.

2. Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts to Try the Offence Under Section 89 Read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The court examined whether criminal courts have jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was established that the Finance Act, 1994, did not provide specific provisions for the trial of the offence. As per Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the absence of specific provisions in a special Act, all offences shall be investigated, inquired into, and tried according to the Code. This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak AIR 1984 SC 718. Thus, criminal courts were deemed competent to try the offence under the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Grant of Conditional/Temporary Bail to the Applicant:
The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, having been arrested for collecting service tax amounting to Rs.2.17 crores and not depositing it to the State. The applicant proposed to deposit three postdated cheques to cover the outstanding dues. The court considered the applicant's period of detention, the amount due, and the proposal to pay the dues. It was decided to grant conditional and temporary bail for three months under specific conditions:
- The applicant must deposit three postdated cheques for the due amounts on specified dates.
- Furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,00,000/- each.
- The applicant must not leave the State without permission and must regularly appear before the court.
- Any breach of conditions or defaults in appearance would result in automatic cancellation of the bail.

The court partly allowed I.A. No.4 for conditional bail/temporary bail and accepted I.A. No.5 for undertaking for grant of temporary bail, providing the applicant an opportunity to fulfill his financial obligations while ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates