9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Court issuing process to the accused and found that there was no application of mind before issuing process and consequently, it held that the order issuing process to the accused was patently erroneous, perverse and consequently allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 17.12.2014 issuing process to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in literally discharging the accused/respondent herein by exercising power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He contends that the Revisional Court is not invested with power to discharge the respondent. He contends th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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. 8. 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. 9. In that view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
