Case LawHigh Court › Ram Babu Roy v. The Union Of India

Ram Babu Roy v. The Union Of India

High Court 19 May 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Ram Babu Roy v. The Union Of India
Date of order
19 May 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Ram Babu Roy v. The Union Of India, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Having considered the rival submissions in my understanding since the taxes have already deposited and whether the default was willful or not is too vague a term I would be inclined to quash the proceeding.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31349 of 2012 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -181 Year- 2007 Thana –Complaint Case District- PATNA ======================================================== Ram Babu Roy S/o Late Shiv Nandan Lal Resident of Singhi Dalan Gali, P.S.- Khajekalan, Patna City, Dist.- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ======================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V. Pathy, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Archana Sinha, SC ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASHORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-05-2015 The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Complaint Case No. 181(C) of 2007. The case of the Complainant is that the Petitioner had willfully defaulted in payment of taxes for the period between 2004-06. The Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that even before institution of the Complaint the Petitioner had already paid taxes and, hence, the Complaint should not have been instituted. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Union of India submits that since the Petitioner had willfully defaulted the payment of taxes he should be put on trial. Having considered the rival submissions in my understanding since the taxes have already deposited and whether the default was willful or not is too vague a term I would be inclined to quash the proceeding. Hence, the entire proceeding including the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna in Complaint Case No. 181(C) of 2007 is, hereby, set aside. The application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Vikash/- U T
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan