9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Umesh Kumar, J. For the Applicant : Pragya Pandey,Anurag Mishra,Vikas Srivastava For the Opposite Party : A.S.G.I.,Ramesh Chandra Shukla ORDER Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the material placed on record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging impugned summoning order dated 30.05.2017 and the impugned Non- Bailable Warrant dated 07.09.2019 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,Meerut as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2049 of 2016 under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Act registered as Complaint Case No.7020 of 2016 (Union of India Versus Shri Kulkant K. Gahoi and others), pending in the court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity of cross-examination was not provided to the applicant company, the applicant company preferred Writ Tax No.300 of 2015 before a Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2015 with the following observation: In any view of the matter, as and when final orders are passed and the assessee feels that there has been violation of principles of natural justice or settled principles of law, he can always question the order by filing the appeal before the appellant authority. It is then contended that despite order of this Court the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 31.03.2015 confirmed the demand of ₹ 118,98,82,742/-. The company again filed Writ Tax No.686 of 2015 being Single Judge of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India and 3 others passed in Writ-C No. 33950 of 2015 in which this issue has also been examined, especially with regard to retrospectivity of Section 35-F of the Act as amended from 06.08.2014. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder: ....it is clear that appeals which are filed on and after the enforcement of the amended provision on 6th August 2014 shall be governed by the requirement of pre-deposit as stipulated therein. The only category to which the provision will not apply that would be those where the appeals or, as the case may be, stay applications were pending before the appellate authority prior to the commencement of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. It is well settled law that when an amendment is made the intendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing order dated 30.05.2017. The applicant company has again approached this Court by means of Writ Tax No.843 of 2017 in which instructions were sought by counsel for the Revenue wherein it has been stated that as below: As regards whether the statement of the witnesses who are not available for the cross-examination shall be relied upon in the adjudicating proceedings or not, it may be submitted before the Hon'ble Court that before passing the adjudication order, the authority undertakes to follow the principles of natural justice and the relevant judgements passed by the higher judicial forum including Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the similar issues. It was observed that the revenue ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand has not been finalized and still 14 witnesses are yet to be cross-examined by him before Adjudicating Authority. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, continuance of proceeding in aforesaid case is nothing but an abuse of process of law which may be quashed by this Court. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.2. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
