BHANWAR LAL S/O SHRI ARUN SAHAY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR-2

CRLMP/1050/2019HC RajasthanRJHC02014246201907 March 2019Author: KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the validity of an administrative action, such as the grant of prosecution sanction, until criminal proceedings are initiated. The court characterized the grant of prosecution sanction as an administrative act by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order granting the prosecution sanction. Therefore, the present petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the lawful alternative remedy available if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court directed the petitioner to pursue a different legal avenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhanwar Lal, is aggrieved by the prosecution sanction granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Jaipur-2 for the assessment year 2006-2007. The petitioner has filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court. At the time of filing the petition, criminal proceedings had not yet been initiated against the petitioner, and no such proceedings were pending in any court. The petitioner's grievance is specifically against the order granting the prosecution sanction, which is characterized as an administrative act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the validity of an administrative action (grant of prosecution sanction) when no criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order granting prosecution sanction and seeks relief from the High Court. The petitioner implicitly argues that the High Court should intervene to quash this administrative action. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely argue that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not invoked in the absence of pending criminal proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 226 of Constitution of India

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1050/2019 Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Arun Sahay ----Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-2 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Chawla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order 07/03/2019 Counsel for the petitioner has contended that qua the demand raised for assessment year 2006-2007 prosecution sanction has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Jaipur-2. Admittedly, at this juncture, criminal proceedings have not been initiated against the petitioner and they are not pending in any court. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order whereby prosecution sanction has been granted by Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Jaipur-2. Grant of prosecution sanction is an administrative act on the part of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Jaipur-2. The remedy for the petitioner is to file a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying therein that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and order granting prosecution sanction be quashed. Until any criminal proceedings are initiated this court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to determine the validity of an administrative action.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1050/2019] Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail lawful alternative remedy available if so advised. Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the order/documents and Vakalatnama annexed with the present petition to the petitioner upon furnishing true photostat copies thereof by counsel for the petitioner. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Heena/73

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →