Respondent undertook to decide a compounding application within four weeks. Court directed Respondent not to launch criminal prosecution pending this decision. Order without prejudice to contentions.
Direction to Respondent not to launch criminal prosecution; undertaking to communicate decision within 4 weeks.
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.3609.2015.2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3609 of 2015
Sanjay Vyas and Ors. } Petitioners versus Union of India and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Vikram Nankani – Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Agarwal and Ms. Neha Ahuja i/b. Mr. H. K. Sudhakara 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.3609.2015.2.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 05-10-2015 for 'Compounding' (at Exhibit-'B' supra), without waiting for the adjudication of the case.
Page 2 of 3
J.V.Salunke,PA
WPL.3609.2015.2.doc
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Vyas and Ors.
Union of India and Ors.
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
