B.R.AJIT, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. It directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate on June 26, 2019, and ordered that his bail application, if filed, be considered and orders passed on the same day. The Court found the apprehension of the petitioner's counsel regarding the bail application's consideration to be misconceived, given the nature of the allegations. Furthermore, after appearing, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for exemption from appearance, in line with the directions in 'Raju T.P. v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 14]'. The Magistrate was directed to consider such an application on its merits. The petitions were disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, B.R. Ajit, Managing Director of M/s. Beaver Estates Pvt. Ltd., is the accused in several cases pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, for alleged violations of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, an architect, suffers from coronary ailments. On his failure to appear on May 6, 2019, the Magistrate initiated coercive proceedings despite his counsel filing an application for exemption. The petitioner contended that his absence was not willful and sought directions from the High Court. The cases involved are C.C. Nos. 996/2014, 915/2014, 65/2015, 66/2015, 68/2015, 67/2015, and 995/2014.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner should be quashed, considering his medical condition and the circumstances of his absence from court. (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to appear before the Magistrate and have his bail application considered. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is an architect suffering from coronary ailments. His absence on May 6, 2019, was not willful, and an application for exemption had been filed. They prayed for necessary directions from the court. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Public Prosecutor appeared and was heard. No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R -------------- The petitioner herein is the accused in a series of cases pending on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam. In those cases, he is being prosecuted for having violated the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Architect by profession and is suffering from Coronary ailments. On his failure to appear on 6.5.2019, the learned Magistrate has initiated coercive proceedings though an application was filed by his counsel seeking exemption. According to the learned counsel, his absence is not willful and prays that necessary directions be issued.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar and taking note of his physical condition, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate.
CRL.MC.NO.3938 OF 2019 &
The non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner will stand quashed. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.06.2019 and his bail application, if any, shall be considered and orders shall be passed on the same day itself. The apprehension of the learned counsel that his application for bail will not be positively considered is misconceived in view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner.
After appearing before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner may file an application in tune with the directions issued by this Court in Raju T.P. v. State of Kerala [2009 (3) KHC 14] seeking exemption from appearance. If any such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on its merits. These petitions are disposed of with the above directions. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., NS JUDGE ////// P.A. TO JUDGE
CRL.MC.NO.3938 OF 2019 & APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3938 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I IN CRL.M.C NO.5485/2014 ANNEXURE-II THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2522/2019 IN CC NO.996/2014. RESPONDENT(S)ANNEXURES : NIL APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3939 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2511/2019 IN CC NO.915/2014. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL
CRL.MC.NO.3938 OF 2019 & APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3940 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2501/2019 IN CC NO.65/2015 ALONG WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3941 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2512/2019 IN CC NO.66/2015. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL
CRL.MC.NO.3938 OF 2019 & APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3942 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2513/2019 IN CC NO.68/2015. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3943 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2520/2019 IN CC NO.67/2015. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL
CRL.MC.NO.3938 OF 2019 & APPENDIX IN CRL.M.C. NO.3944 OF 2019 PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE-I THEOF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE ABSENCE OF THE 2ND ACCUSED IN CMP 2524/2019 IN C.C.NO.995/2014. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :NIL
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026