Allowed

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao v. Superintendent (a.E) and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2015WP/735/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner in a service tax evasion case to travel abroad for six months without personal attendance being required for adjudication proceedings, directing prior intimation to investigating and adjudicating officers.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to travel abroad for six months; direction to give four days' advance intimation to Investigating and Adjudicating Officers.

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao Vs Superintendent (a.E) and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

912_wp_735_15.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.735 OF 2015

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao

...Petitioner

Versus

Superintendent (A.E.), Service Tax-II & Anr.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. V.M. Advani a/w Mr. A.M. Sachwani and Mr. R.R.Shah for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶9

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : -5/3/2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned advocate for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the Respondent No.2-State.

¶12

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting his prayer to travel abroad during the period of next six months.

¶13

megha Page No.1 of 3

¶14

912_wp_735_15.doc

¶15

The Petitioner had been arrested by Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 89 (i) (ii) of chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax). He has been released on bail on certain conditions. He had allegedly evaded the service tax to the tune of Rs.5,87,00,000/-. He has paid part of the alleged evaded service tax. He now wants to travel abroad during the next six months for the purpose of his business.

¶16

The petition is strongly opposed by the learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 and also learned APP for Respondent No.2-State. It is submitted by learned APP Mrs. Pai that during the course of further investigation it is revealed that total evaded service tax amounts to Rs.16,82,00,000/-. The investigation is in progress.

¶17

Even if the contention of the learned APP is accepted to be correct the fact remains that investigation is in progress. It is the normal practice of the Service Tax Department that they normally complete the adjudication process first and they decide as to whether prosecution has to be launched or not. In the adjudication proceedings, show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner.

¶18

megha Page No.2 of 3

¶19

912_wp_735_15.doc

¶20

In any event it is not the case of the Respondent No.1 that

¶21

the personal attendance of the Petitioner is necessary for the adjudication proceedings. It is well known that the adjudication proceedings are normally taken care of by the consultants. It is thus obvious that personal attendance of the Applicant will not be necessary during the adjudication proceedings. In these circumstances, it is not just and proper to curtail the liberty of the Petitioner particularly when he is travelling abroad for the purpose of his business. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶22

The Petitioner is allowed to travel abroad during the period of next six months from today. It is directed that he should give advance intimation of at least four days to the Investigating Officer and the Adjudicating Officer of his intention to travel abroad.

¶23

Learned A.P.P. Mrs. Pai prays for stay of the order. Prayer is

¶24

rejected. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Page No.3 of 3

¶26

megha

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao v. Superintendent (a.E) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao v. Superintendent (a.E) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sneha Sandesh Ghosalkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kalikumar @ Vijay Kishore Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs Kiran Deepak Verma (Metrimonial Name) Ms. Kiran K. Pande Vs Laxminarayan Bhawandin Verma and Ors.

Ajit Ramawadh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiishor Mehta Vs Rekha Sheth and Anr.

Jangbahadur Singh Gujral Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.