Case Law Details
Amazing Security Services Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the case of Amazing Security Services Pvt Ltd (formerly Vijaya Bank) regarding a GST-related dispute. The court examined the application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the summoning order and non-bailable warrants issued against the company.
Case Background: The application sought to quash the summons dated February 2023 and the non-bailable warrant issued on May 15, 2024, in Complaint Case No. 77625 of 2022. The complaint involved charges under Sections 89 and 83 of the Finance Act, 1944, Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case relates to the alleged tax liability for services provided between April 2014 and June 2017 to educational institutions, which were claimed to be exempt from service tax.
Arguments and Submissions: Counsel for the applicant argued that the dispute was ongoing with the authorities since 2018, with a show cause notice issued on November 7, 2019, demanding Rs. 6,69,58,967. The applicant had deposited Rs. 1,03,46,538 under protest and applied for settlement under the Sabka Vikas Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, which remains pending. The counsel requested exemption from personal attendance during trial, citing a Supreme Court decision in Sharif Ahmed And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another.
On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. contended that the complaint was valid, given the adjudication order of January 14, 2020, and the ongoing settlement application did not prevent the filing of the complaint.
Court’s Decision: The Allahabad High Court directed the applicant to appear before the trial court within two weeks and apply for bail. The court instructed that the bail application be considered on the same day of appearance. Additionally, the trial court was to evaluate the request for appearing through a pleader and proceed with the case according to the law.
The court also stayed the non-bailable warrants for two weeks to allow the applicant time to comply with the order.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in tax-related disputes and provides relief by staying the non-bailable warrants. The applicant is expected to cooperate with the trial and adhere to the court’s directives.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 02.2023 as well as the order dated 15.05.2024 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 77625 of 2022 (Union of India vs. M/s Amazing Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and others) under Sections 89, 83 of Finance Act, 1944, Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 and Section 9 r/w Section 9(AA) of Central Excise Act, 1944, Police Station Kakadeo, District-Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is with regard to tax liability on the services provided by the applicant herein between April, 2014 and June, 2017 to the educational institutions. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid period was exempted from the service tax for the security services provided to the educational institutions. The aforesaid dispute was pending with the authority since 2018 onwards and the applicants have continuously participated in the aforesaid proceedings and finally a show cause notice was issued on 7.11.2019 raising a demand of Rs. 6,69,58,967/-. The aforesaid show cause notice was duly responded by the applicants herein and thereupon on 14.01.2020, Adjudicating Authority has adjudicated the aforesaid claim against the applicants herein. Thereupon under protest the applicants have deposited Rs. 1,03,46,538/- and since the scheme ‘Sabka Vikas Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019′ was prevalent at that point of time the applicant has applied for settlement of his tax liability under the scheme. The aforesaid application for settlement under the said scheme is still pending and it is submitted that the scheme is still prevalent. In the meantime, the instant complaint has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with regard to same tax liablity for which the settlement application is already pending under the Scheme. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has throughout cooperated with the notices and summons issued against the applicants and he further submits that the applicants are still ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case, however, if an opportunity is granted to the applicants to contest the aforesaid complaint case through its pleader as the offences are of totally accounting disputes between the parties and the applicability of the exemption scheme, etc., therefore, there is no question of any interference by the applicants with the evidence or the witnesses of the case. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by asking the applicants to be present on each and every date during the consideration of the case unless specifically warranted for recording the statements or cross-examination, etc.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another dated 01.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 1074 of 2017 and other connected matters, wherein the Apex Court in para 47 has relied upon another judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Maneka Sanjay Ganhdi and Another vs. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167, wherein it has been held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstance require such exemption. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader.
5. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court in Sharif Ahmed (supra), learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to appear before the trial court and thereupon he should be permitted to appear through pleader. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrants have already been issued against the applicant herein and if an opportunity is granted, the applicant shall appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today and apply for bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant is not entitled for any exemption, which has already been adjudicated vide order dated 14.1.2020 by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the applicant is in default of payment of tax in terms of adjudication of the authority and has failed to pay the tax. Pendency of the application for settlement of tax dispute would not preclude the Authority to file the complaint In view thereof, learned A.G.A. submits that the complaint is maintainable and has been validly filed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in all its ramification and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the instant application is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) that the applicant herein shall appear before the trial court within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and apply for bail.
(ii) on such appearance of the applicant, his bail application shall be considered on the same day by the trial court Thereafter, the trial court shall consider the application of the applicant herein for appearance through pleader in accordance with law.
(iii) thereafter, the trial court, shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and the applicant shall undertake to cooperate with the trial and shall present himself as and when specifically directed by the trial court.
(iv) for a period of two weeks from today, the non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant in the aforesaid case shall be kept in abeyance.
Author Bio
