| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6277 (SC) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 136 Section 276
Where the assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in K.M. Mammen v. Dy. CIT [Crl. O.P. No. 9065 of 2011, dt. 6-3-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8210 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that assessee was seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial court, which was neither a clerical nor an arithmetical error, as such, the court was clearly barred under section 362 Cr.PC, that Supreme Court, in the decision reported in the case of Narayan Prasad v. State Bihar & Ors. 2017 SCC Online SC 1738 had held that prohibition under section 362 CrPC, is absolute and after the judgment was signed, even High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.PC has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same, that assessee was having a remedy under section 205 Cr.PC, before the trial court, for dispensing with his appearnace, as was rightly pointed out by authorities. The Supreme Court, directed the registry to issue notice, returnable within four weeks and ordered that in the meantime, there shall be ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the impugned judgment dated 28-2-2019.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Prosecution - Permission or dispensation with his personal appearance before trial court
Assessee preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in K.M. Mammen v. Dy. CIT [Crl. O.P. No. 9065 of 2011, dt. 6-3-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 8210 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that assessee was seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial court, which was neither a clerical nor an arithmetical error, as such, the court was clearly barred under section 362 Cr.PC, that Supreme Court, in the decision reported in the case of Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2017 SCC online SC 1738 had held that prohibition under section 362 CrPC, is absolute and after the judgment was signed, even High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.PC has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same, that assessee was having a remedy under section 205 Cr.PC, before the trial court, for dispensing with his appearnace, as was rightly pointed out by authorities. Held: The Supreme Court, considering section 279(1A) and the decision in Prem Dass v. ITO [Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 1992, dt. 9-2-1999] : (1999) 236 ITR 0683 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1171 (SC) relied on by Counsel of petitioner to contend that CIT(A) had reduced penalty from 300% to 100%, no prosecution could be launched or continued against the assessee, directed the Registry to issue notice, returnable within four weeks and ordered that in the meantime, there shall be ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the impugned judgment dated 28-2-2019.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|