Writ petition challenging Compounding Rules; petitioners withdrew validity challenge. Court directed Respondent to decide compounding application within four weeks and stayed criminal prosecution.
Direction to Respondent to decide compounding application within four weeks and stay on criminal prosecution pending decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPL.3614.2015.3.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3614 of 2015
Sandeep Nahar and Anr. } Petitioners versus Union of India and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Vikram Nankani – Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Agarwal and Ms. Neha Ahuja i/b. Mr. Yogesh Rohira for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondents.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED :- JANUARY 4, 2016
P.C. :-
The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeks following two substantive reliefs:-
(a) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the impugned second proviso to subrule (3) of Rule 4 of the Compounding Rules as ultra vires of section 137(3),
or
In the alternative to read down and expound the scope and extent of the impugned proviso to apply only to such cases where the applicant/assessee seeks compounding of the offence after adjudication proceedings against him are completed, and his liability to penalty etc is determined, and not to a case where an assessee approaches for compounding of the offence even before such adjudication takes place,
Page 1 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PA
WPL.3614.2015.3.doc
(b) And consequently, to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no. 3 to expeditiously decide on merits, the application dated 10/11-10-2015 for 'Compounding' (at Exhibit-'B' supra), without waiting for the adjudication of the case.
Page 2 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PA
WPL.3614.2015.3.doc
receipt of a copy of this order. We accept this statement as an undertaking given to this Court. We direct that till the decision as above is communicated to the Petitioners, the Respondents shall not launch any criminal prosecution against the Petitioners. We do not think that any other order or protection is needed and necessary. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides.
(G.S.PATEL, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PA
Sandeep Nahar and Anr.
Union of India and Ors.
S. C. Dharmadikari
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
