9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 324 - SC - Income TaxRestraining the petition from transferring funds overseas - Offences under Section 277 of Income Tax Act,1961 - Trial court passed the order - HC 2018 (7) TMI 2075 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT set aside the order and restored the matter before trial court to have given an opportunity to the respondent - Held that - Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar, the special leave petition is disposed of giving liberty to the parties to raise all the contentions before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
Issues:
1. Delay condonation 2. Legality of the order passed by the Trial Court 3. High Court's observations and directions 4. Clarifications by the Supreme Court 5. Disposal of the special leave petition Delay Condonation: The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, condoned the delay in the case. The Assistant Director of Income Tax filed a special leave petition challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a criminal writ petition. The petitioner sought to issue a letter of request to the competent authority of Bailiwick of Guernsey for a specific investigation related to the transfer of funds/assets by the respondent. Legality of the Trial Court Order: The Trial Court had allowed the petitioner-Department's application and signed the Letter of Request, leading to the respondent filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and directed a fresh hearing of the respondent's application. The High Court emphasized that the Trial Court should afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and that the funds subject to the application should not be transferred pending the decision. High Court's Observations and Directions: The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order and the Letter of Request. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing of the respondent's application. The High Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case and directed the Trial Court to decide the proceedings in accordance with the law. Clarifications by the Supreme Court: During the hearing of the special leave petition, the Supreme Court clarified a specific phrase in the High Court's order, changing "may not be transferred" to "shall not be transferred." The parties were granted liberty to appear before the Trial Court and raise all contentions. The Supreme Court directed that the clarification made by them shall continue until the disposal of the application by the Trial Court and instructed the Trial Court to consider the matter without being influenced by the High Court's views. Disposal of the Special Leave Petition: The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition, granting liberty to the parties to present their arguments before the Trial Court. The Court also stated that pending applications would stand disposed of, maintaining that the Trial Court should independently consider the case without being swayed by the High Court's opinions.
|
