The Guidelines of 2014, under which the last application for compounding was made, and was accepted to be in the prescribed format, has enured to the benefit of the petitioner and the application has rightly been processed under these Guidelines. The petitioner has not raised a challenge either to the 2008 Guidelines or 2003 Guidelines. It is only after the charges were framed in the criminal proceedings and after filing the applications for compounding and after compounding charges have been determined as per the formula prescribed in the 2014 Guidelines, that the challenge has been raised by the petitioner. The petitioner having voluntarily agreed and undertaken to the department to pay the compounding charges and to withdraw his appeal, ought to be directed to be bound down by the same. It is a settlement process voluntarily invoked by the petitioner in order to escape criminal prosecution under the Act. Since an accused may have to suffer severe consequences for non-payment of tax, if he is held to be guilty, it is not open to him to challenge the reasonableness of the same. The petitioner had consciously undertaken to abide by the decision of the Committee constituted for compounding the offences. ( WP.(C) 6268/2017, dt. 23.01.2018)
Vikram Singh v. UOI( 2018) 401 ITR 307 / 163 DTR 55 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Compounding of offences – Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable [ S. 276 ,277, 278 ]