Wp/2453/2008 Of Juzar S. Khorakiwala v. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central - 1
High Court
23 Oct 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/2453/2008 Of Juzar S. Khorakiwala v. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central - 1
Date of order
23 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/2453/2008 Of Juzar S. Khorakiwala v. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central - 1, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO.2453 OF 2008
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2454 OF 2008
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2455 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s
appearances, Court’s orders
order or directions
-----------------------------------------------------
¦ Mr.V.Ramchandran i/b
¦ A.K.Jasani for the Appellants.
¦ Mr.B.M.Chatterjee for the
¦ Respondent.
¦
¦
¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
¦ J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
¦ DATED:23RD OCTOBER, 2008
P.C.:
By these petitions the Petitioners
challenge two orders, one dated
11-2-2008 and other dated 20-2-2008.
By those orders the application
under Section 279 made by the
Petitioners for compounding of
offences has been rejected.
2. The short grievance made against
the order is that the application
made by the Petitioners for
compounding of the offences has been
rejected without giving the
Petitioners an opportunity of being
heard. It is common ground that the
- 2 -
Petitioners were not given an
opportunity of being heard before
order rejecting the application was
made.
3. Perusal of the applications
filed for compounding of the
offences shows that there are
several grounds raised by the
Petitioners in support of their
application that the offences
against them should be compounded.
They also relied on the guide-lines
issued by the Department which are
to be followed in such cases. In
our opinion, considering that the
order had drastic consequences and
the issue was complicated, it was
necessary for the authority to grant
an opportunity of being heard to the
Petitioners before making the order.
4. In this situation, in our
opinion, following order would meet
the ends of justice.
O R D E R
(i) Both orders impugned in the
petitions are set aside.
- 3 -
(ii) Proceedings are remitted back
to the Chief Commissioner for denovo
consideration and decision in
accordance with law.
(iii) It is made clear that before
passing the order the Chief
Commissioner shall grant an
opportunity of being heard to the
Petitioners.
(iv) Complaints that have been filed
pursuant to the orders impugned in
the petitions shall be kept pending
till fresh order is made.
(v) It goes without saying that in
case fresh order is in favour of the
Petitioners, then the complaints
shall be withdrawn. If it goes
against the Petitioners, then the
Department shall be entitled to
prosecute the complaints.
(vi) Rule made absolute accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
- 4 -
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
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.