PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 8, DELHI vs. M/S. SOJITZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/28/2017HC DelhiDLHC01219532201610 January 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no justification for making observations in the last three pages of the impugned order, as these observations would impact the merits of the case before the trial court. The Court found that the observations from the second paragraph of page 9 to page 11 of the impugned order were unwarranted. Consequently, the High Court ordered that these specific observations be expunged. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting upon the merits of the case. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jasbir Singh, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated August 26, 2016. This impugned order granted bail to respondent no. 2 and also contained observations regarding the propriety of lodging an FIR. Furthermore, it directed the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment case of the petitioner for the relevant period. The petitioner argued that specific observations made in the impugned order, from the second paragraph of page 9 to page 11, were unwarranted as the FIR was registered concerning invoices. The respondent contended that these observations were made suo motu by the court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the observations made in the impugned order from the second paragraph of page 9 to page 11 were warranted, considering the FIR was registered regarding invoices? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the observations were unwarranted and uncalled for, as the FIR pertained to invoices. The petitioner relied on the fact that the FIR was related to invoices to support this argument. Revenue's Contention: The respondent submitted that the observations were made by the court suo motu, implying no specific legal basis was required for their inclusion, but rather it was an independent observation by the court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Page | 1 $~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 28/2017 JASBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar and Mr. Kshitij Kumar, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Ravi Shankar Garg, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R % 21.01.2019 Crl.M.A. 14476/2017 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 14477/2017 (for Delay) There is delay of 70 days in filing reply to the petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 28/2017 Impugned order of 26th August, 2016 grants bail to respondent while making observations regarding propriety of lodging of the FIR in question and a direction has been issued to the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax Department to reopen the assessment case of petitioner for the relevant period.

Page | 2 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that observations made from second para of page 9 to page 11 of the impugned order, are unwarranted as FIR was registered regarding the invoices, and so the observations made in the aforesaid paragraphs are uncalled for. Learned counsel for respondent submits that aforesaid observations have been made by the Court suo moto. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no justification for making observations in the last three pages of the impugned order, as it would impact upon the merits of the case before the trial court. Accordingly, the observations made from second paragraph of page 9 to page 11 of the impugned order are hereby expunged. With aforesaid directions, this petition is accordingly disposed of, while not commenting upon the merits of the case. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 21, 2019 p’ma

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →