2008 (8) SCC 413
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.P. Naolekar And V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
M. Natarajan - PETITIONER
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB Chennai - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.835 Of 2008
Decided On: May 7, 2008
(1996)5 SCC 591; (2002)2 SCC 697; (2003)5 SCC 257; (2005)1 SCC 568; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; (2004)2 SCC 731; (2006)7 SCC 642; (2007)2 SCC 777; (2006)13 SCC 252; (2007)5 SCC 416 - Referred to.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant was charged with offences related to tax evasion, forgery, and conspiracy involving customs duties and importation of a vehicle (!) (!) .
The case involved allegations that false documents and forged invoices were used to facilitate the import and clearance of a vehicle under the Transfer of Residence scheme, leading to wrongful loss to the government (!) (!) .
The appellant contended that he had no direct role in the production of documents for the vehicle’s clearance and relied on a settlement scheme that provided immunity from prosecution for taxes paid and settled under that scheme (!) (!) .
The scheme in question, which was designed to settle tax disputes, offered immunity from prosecution under certain conditions, primarily relating to direct and indirect tax offences, but its scope regarding other offences was subject to interpretation (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the immunity granted under the scheme extended to offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as forgery and conspiracy, and concluded that the immunity was limited to tax-related offences only (!) (!) .
It was emphasized that acts independent of the tax declaration, such as false representations or fabrications not directly linked to the tax scheme, do not fall within the scope of the immunity provided (!) (!) .
The court noted that multiple offences could be committed in connection with a single transaction, but immunity under the scheme does not automatically cover offences outside the scope of the tax-related declaration and settlement (!) (!) .
The judgments clarified that immunity granted under tax settlement schemes is specific to offences under tax laws and does not extend to other criminal acts, especially those under the Indian Penal Code, unless explicitly covered by the scheme (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the offences committed by the appellant, which included making false declarations and fabricating documents, were outside the scope of the immunity provided by the settlement scheme (!) .
Ultimately, the court reaffirmed that while tax-related immunity schemes aim to promote settlement and compliance, they do not provide blanket immunity for all criminal conduct associated with the transaction unless specifically stated (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT:
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No.538 of 2005 and Criminal O.P. No.21636 of 2005 filed by the appellant herein.
3. Following facts will highlight the controversy involved.
One Dr. S. Balakrishnan, purchased the Toyota Lexus Car which was sent by Ship to Madras Port in July, 1994. His son Yogesh Balakrishnan presented certain documents for getting clearance of the said car from the Customs Department. One such document was a letter dated 8.9.1994 authored by the appellant herein Shri M. Natarajan who is the publisher of a magazine called "Tamilarasi" which publication had commenced in the year 1992. He is also the author of bi-monthly magazine "Pudiya Paarvai" which surfaced in the year 1993. One Baskaran was said to be assisting the appellant being the incharge of these publications. The said letter dated 8.9.1994 which was used by accused Yogesh Balkrishnan was authored by the appellant and addressed to the Manager, Indian Bank, Abiramapuram, Madras on behalf of Tamilarasi publication to the following effect:
"We invite reference to the various remittances made by our purchase creditors on 22.6.94 into our account, and would like to inform you that a sum of Rs.12 lacs remitted relates to the remittances made by our Foreign buyers of our weekly and fortnightly magazines.
Kindly issue a Foreign Inward certificate for this sum of Rs.12 lacs." On the basis of this letter the Foreign Inward Certificate, as sought for by the appellant, was issued by the bank. Ultimately the said car was cleared and was allowed to be imported.
4. A First Information Report came to be lodged at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai for offences under Sections 120B read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. In that First Information Report, four accused were arrayed, they being, (i) Shri S. Senthivel, Commissioner of Customs (Retd.), Chennai, (ii) Shri Hariharan, former Asstt. Collector Customs, Chennai, (iii) Shri Raja Manoharan, Former Apprising Officer, Customs, Chennai and (iv) Shri Balakrishnan. It was suggested in the report that in the year 1994 the four accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy in Chennai to cheat the Department of Customs, Government of India in the matter of assessment of duty on a car imported by fourth accused and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the fourth accused, in connivance with Accused Nos.1 to 3 imported Toyata Lexus Car CS 300 of engine capacity 3000 CC bearing Engine No.2320283150 and Chassis No. JT 153-Jse 7 - 000727250 and had sought customs clearance under the condition of transfer of residence to India for permanent settlement by producing forged and fabricated invoice LEX00077 dated 13.7.1993 showing the value of 21405 as if the car was purchased in 1993 for that value. In pursuance of this conspiracy A1 to A3 fraudulently and dishonestly abused their official position and cleared the car on 8.9.1994 after allowing 19% depreciation on the cost of the car, knowing fully well that firstly the car was not purchased in the year 1993 and the original cost of the car was more than the declared value and further that the importer was producing forged documents and thereby had caused wrongful loss of Rs.4 lakhs to the Government of India by way of customs duty. On the basis of this the investigation was started by the CBI.
6. Ultimately, however, the charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and the four other accused, namely, (i) Shri V. Bhaskaran, (ii) Shri S. Balakrishnan, (iii) Shri Yogesh Balakrishnan and (iv) Smt.Sujaritha Sundarajan. In the charge-sheet it was stated that the first accused (appellant herein) was Director of Tamilarasi Publication, the second accused was a private individual
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi
Sushila Rani (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.
K.C. Builders and Anr. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi
State of Haryana and Ors. V. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Calcutta V. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.