B.R.AJIT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the petitioner's age (65 years) and his admitted admission to Madonna Hospital and Research Centre for a heart condition. While acknowledging the inconsistencies in the medical certificates provided by Dr. Thomas Paul, and the doctor's explanation based on clinical judgment rather than specific reports, the Court found that the petitioner was indeed suffering from some form of heart disease and was hospitalized. Therefore, the Court granted a 'breathing time' to the petitioner. The proceedings before the learned Magistrate were adjourned to September 16, 2019, on which date the petitioner was directed to appear without fail. Coercive proceedings were kept in abeyance until that date, with no further extension to be granted. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying Income Tax Act violations.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, B.R. Ajit, Managing Director of M/s. Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd., is the second accused in several criminal complaints filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (E&O), Ernakulam. These complaints were initiated in 2014 and 2015 for alleged violations of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite the proceedings, the petitioner had not appeared before the Magistrate. Coercive proceedings were initiated on May 6, 2019, due to his non-appearance. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to quash the non-bailable warrant and for time to appear, citing coronary artery disease. The Court, on June 7, 2019, quashed the warrant and directed him to appear on June 26, 2019, seek bail, and have his permanent exemption application considered. The petitioner again approached the Court, presenting a new medical certificate indicating inoperable, severe coronary artery disease and stating he was undergoing treatment requiring six months of rest.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further extension of time to appear before the learned Magistrate, considering his alleged medical condition and the inconsistencies in the medical certificates provided. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is suffering from severe coronary artery disease, requiring a six-month period of rest for treatment, and therefore sought an extension of time to appear before the Magistrate. He relied on medical certificates to support his claim. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the medical certificate was procured to evade appearance before the Magistrate. However, they fairly submitted that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital and was likely to be discharged within two weeks. The revenue also pointed out discrepancies in the medical records.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner claims to be a renowned architect and the Principal of a reputed college. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has instituted separate complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) for prosecuting the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Though the prosecution proceedings were initiated in the year 2014 and 2015, the petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate till date. On his failure to appear on 6.5.2019, coercive proceedings were initiated to secure his presence. The petitioner approached this Court and sought for quashing the non-bailable warrant and also for a breathing time to appear before the learned Magistrate. He contended that he was suffering from coronary artery disease and produced a certificate issued by Dr.Thomas Paul of the Madonna Hospital and Research Centre, Angamaly to buttress his contention.
Having considered the fervent prayer, this Court by order dated 7.6.2019 quashed the non-bailable warrant and the petitioner was ordered to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.6.2019. He was ordered to seek bail and the learned Magistrate was directed to pass orders on the same day itself. His application for permanent exemption was ordered to be considered by the learned Magistrate.
Crl.MC.4480/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES 11
Without complying with the earlier order, the petitioner has approached yet again armed with another medical certificate issued by the same doctor. In the said certificate, it is stated that the petitioner is suffering from inoperable, severe coronary artery disease. According to the petitioner, he has now been admitted in the hospital for undergoing EECP and Chelation therapy. He states that the doctor has advised him complete rest for a period of six months. He prays that he be granted a time period of six months to appear before the learned Magistrate.
The certificate produced as Annexure-IV appeared to be incongruous and hence, the 1st respondent was directed to get instructions. A statement is filed before this Court by the 1st respondent stating that there are discrepancies in the records maintained in the hospital.
Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing counsel, submitted that the certificate was procured by the petitioner to somehow or the other evade from appearing before the learned Magistrate. However, it is fairly submitted that the petitioner is now admitted in the hospital and he is likely to be discharged within a period of two weeks.
In view of the submissions, the Doctor, who issued the certificate was ordered to appear before this Court to explain the inconsistencies in the certificate issued by him.
Crl.MC.4480/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES 12
Dr.Thomas Paul, appeared before this Court and submitted that the scan certificate or the examination reports by the Cardiologists of various hospitals will not reveal that the petitioner is suffering from inoperable severe coronary artery disease. However, he would state that it is based on his clinical judgment that Annexure-IV certificate was issued.
I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation offered by the Doctor. The certificate dated 5.6.2019 issued by the Doctor is at variance with the certificate dated 24.6.2019 issued by him. But the fact remains that the petitioner herein is aged about 65 years and is suffering from some form of heart disease. The records also show that he is admitted in the Madonna Hospital and Research Centre, Angamaly.
Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that a breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and take bail. The learned Magistrate shall adjourn the proceedings till 16.9.2019, on which date, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate without fail. The coercive proceedings initiated against him shall be kept in abeyance till then. No further time shall be granted for appearance. These petitions are disposed of. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE PS //// P.A. TO JUDGE
Crl.MC.4480/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES 13
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
