| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 11, 2012 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| Click here to download the judgement (birendra_singh_jhantu_das_contempt_court.pdf) |
High Court Fumes & Sends Dept’s Top Brass To Jail For “Gross Contempt”
The assessee’s truck loaded with betel nuts was seized by the customs authorities on the suspicion that the assessee was indulging in smuggling. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the seizure which was allowed by the High Court and the customs authorities were directed to unconditionally release the truck immediately. Despite the High Court’s verdict, the customs authorities issued a show-cause notice threatening confiscation. The assessee filed a contempt petition against the department. The department defended its stand and at the same time tendered an unconditional apology. HELD by the High Court:
Though the High Court’s order was communicated to the department directing a release of the truck without any conditions, the department wrongly demanded 100% cash security and 100% Bond for the said release. The act of issuing show cause notice to avoid giving release is in direct confrontation with the judicial order of the Court. The plea raised with respect to investigation and confiscation is “absolutely frivolous and ridiculous” and has been raised to save from punishment of contempt. Also, the act of justifying the action and simultaneously tendering unqualified apology is a “double faced stance” which is against the settled principle of law. The Asst/Dy Commissioner, Customs, being a senior officer, should have known his limits and by crossing those limits, he has committed gross contempt. He is accordingly punished with simple imprisonment of three months & fine of Rs. 2,000. Also, as the act may constitute “corrupt practice”, the CBEC may consider prosecuting him.
It was admitted by Income Tax Dept/Revenue that it was inadvertent error in software coding resulting in issuance of bogus demand notices u/s 143(1). It was also admitted in affidavit submitted by Income Tax department that “there was human intervention” in software coding and this intervention was by Directorate of income tax with its instructions.