Allowed

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna v. the Enforcement Officer

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021CRL.P/8042/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an impugned order and proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Officer, EPFO, for alleged non-filing of income tax returns online. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings and the complaint as a similar question was previously decided in this Court's favor.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.05.2015, all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, and the complaint in C.C.No.184/2015 pending against the petitioner were quashed.

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna Vs the Enforcemen… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8042/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. TAPAS RUDRAPATNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O MR. RUDRAPATNA KRISHNAPPA JAGADEESH HAVING OFFICE ADDRESS AT DIRECTOR, WS RETAIL SERVICES PVT. LTD., 68-76, NO.972, IST FLOOR, WARD NO.68, S.T. BED KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560034.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M.NIKHILESH RAO, ADVOCATE A/W SRI GANAPATHY M.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVANA ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX SY. NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGASANDRA BENGALURU-560068.

¶12

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI ANJANA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2015 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.184/2015 (AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM, QUA THE PETITIONER.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.184/2015 by the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bengaluru, qua the petitioner at Annexure ‘A’ and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, and quash the complaint in C.C.No.184/2015 pending on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences), Bengaluru, qua the petitioner and grant such other relief/s as this Court deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶18

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein had initiated the proceedings against this petitioner and also against other three accused persons making the allegation

¶19

¶20

that the income tax returns are not filed in online instead, they have filed manually, when there is a provision to file the returns in online. Hence, there is a violation in filing the income tax returns. Based on the complaint, the proceedings have been initiated against this petitioner and other accused persons.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the complaint, wherein, the proceedings were initiated against other three accused persons and accused No.4, who is the petitioner herein. The other accused persons have approached this court by filing Crl.P.No.1399/2016 c/w. Crl.P.Nos.2229/2016 & 2423/2016, wherein, the same relief was sought. This Court in detail considered the matters and allowed the petitions vide order dated 25.09.2019, wherein, a similar question was considered particularly in paragraphs No.14 to 16 and consequently, petitions are allowed. The detail discussion was made with regard to non-filing of the returns in online and definite filing is given that non-filing of returns in an online, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is being contrary to clause (6)

¶22

¶23

and Section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the same cannot be sustained. In the case on hand, a similar issue is involved in the matter. When this Court had considered the similar issue and came to the conclusion that there cannot be any prosecution against the other accused persons, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings against this petitioner is also liable to be quashed.

¶24

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶25

following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶28

(ii) The impugned order dated 28.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.184/2015 by the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bengaluru, qua the petitioner at Annexure ‘A’ and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, and the complaint in C.C.No.184/2015 pending on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences), Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶29

¶30

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 for

¶31

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

cp*

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna v. the Enforcement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna v. the Enforcement Officer

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

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda Vs State by Thirthahalli Police

Sri Jigar Laxmichand Chadva Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Raja Gopala Reddy Vs Smt P N Suvarnamma

N. J. Ravishankar Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Noban Vs the State of Karnataka