2024 (1) TMI 729 - HC - Service Tax

Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in literally discharging the accused/respondent herein by exercising power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - offences punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court merely indicates that the order issuing process was set aside as there was no proper and sufficient application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Revisional Court while disposing off the revision petition had observed that the private complaint did not disclose that the tax that was collected and not deposited by the accused/respondent did not exceed a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to attract an offence punishable under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994. This is something that the Trial Court must have considered. Having regard to the fact that the order impugned before the Revisional Court did not show any clear application of mind and also did not indicate that the Trial Court was satisfied that an offence under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 was committed, the Revisional Court ought to have remitted the case back to the Trial Court for reconsideration namely, to take cognizance after due application of mind. There is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting interference at the hands of this Court - the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The correctness of the order passed by the Revisional Court setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing process to the accused under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Revisional Court
The petitioner challenged the Revisional Court's order, claiming it exceeded its jurisdiction by discharging the accused. The petitioner argued that there was sufficient material to proceed against the accused under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Revisional Court had no power to discharge the respondent.

Issue 2: Application of Mind by Trial Court
The respondent contended that the Trial Court mechanically issued process without proper application of mind. Citing the case of Sunil Bharathi Mittal Vs. CBI, the respondent argued that summoning the accused without recording proper reasons was incorrect. The respondent sought interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. due to an error apparent in the Trial Court's order.

Judgment:
Upon considering the arguments, the Court noted that the Revisional Court set aside the order due to a lack of proper application of mind. It observed that the private complaint did not establish that the tax collected and not deposited exceeded the threshold to attract an offence under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that the Trial Court should have considered this aspect and remitted the case back for reconsideration to take cognizance after proper application of mind. As there was no error apparent in the impugned order warranting interference, the petition was dismissed, with the case remitted back to the Trial Court to take fresh steps in accordance with the law.

*This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues and the Court's decision on each issue.*